Judgment :- This is the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Shakti Textiles Corporation for a direction to the respondent, the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai-2, to release the 306 bags of yarn said to belong to the petitioner and seized by the respondent, or under his directions. These goods are covered by an order of the respondent dated October 30, 1971, under Rule 206(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. That order was made on application by the petitioner dated October 27, 1971 and it was to the effect that the goods seized could be considered for provisional release pending adjudication of the case, if the owner of the goods was prepared to execute a bond with a cash security equal to the value of the goods seized. Thereupon, the petitioner has moved this Court for the relief aforementioned on the ground that the seizure of the goods was illegal, in so far as there was no provision for seizure of goods in the hands of bona fide purchaser for value, as it is claimed, who had paid the excise duty thereon to the manufacture of such goods, that even if there was such a provision, it would be violative of Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the constitution, and that Rule 9(2) of the rules would have no application to a case like this, where the goods were not in possession, custody or control of the manufacturer. 2.The petitioner is a dealer in yarn and cloth at Madurai, and in its usual course of business, purchases yarn from various Textile Mills, including Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd., Kalaiyarkoil. On October 16, 1971, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on a check of the stock and accounts of Kaleeswarar Mills, noticed a shortage of 34, 504.7 kg. of cotton yarn of various counts in stock with reference to the Central Excise statutory account in Form R.G. 1 maintained by the Mill showing the daily production, clearance and closing stock of the factory. Rule 52A provides for removal of excisable goods from a factory duty covered by a gate pass after debiting the appropriate duty in the personal ledger account as required under Rule 173G(1). Rule 52A provides for removal of excisable goods from a factory duty covered by a gate pass after debiting the appropriate duty in the personal ledger account as required under Rule 173G(1). The Assistant Collector found that in addition to a genuine [gate] pass book in use, there was a bogus gate pass book in use by the Mill for removal of cotton yarn without payment of duty thereon, on several occasions beginning from September 25, 1971. On the next day, this officer also checked Somasundaram Mills Ltd., Muthanedal, which was under the same management as Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd., and discovered a shortage of 66, 128.66 kg. of cotton yarn in stock, and two bogus gate pass books used from August 29, 1971, apart from the genuine gate pass book. According to the Assistant Collector, these bogus gate passes revealed that large quantities of cotton yarn were removed from the Mills without payment of duty to the tune of about one lakh of rupees. Finding that the petitioner was one of the regular customers, that is what we have from the Assistant Collector's counter-affidavit, who had received such consignments of yarn on which Central Excise duty had not been paid, he, on October 18, 1971 visited its business premises and seized certain documents like invoices, bogus gate passes etc. So far as the yarn consignments covered by these documents were concerned, they were not available in the premises since they had been dispatched to different places by the petitioner. The invoices and the gate passes seized showed that the required duty had been paid. But the Assistant Collector would say that it was not a proof for payment of Central excise duty in the face of the evidence to the contrary available at the factory, the place of manuacture, and in respect of clearance of such excisable goods. The consignments of the related yarn which were on their move in lorries, would appear to have been traced, and were eventually seized by the Central Excises Officers at their destination. From the statement of details of seizures it is seen that in all 243 bags were seized which were of a total quantity of 14, 799 kgs. and of the total value of Rs. 2, 24, 800 in respect of which excise duty payable, but not paid, was Rs. 14, 583.90. From the statement of details of seizures it is seen that in all 243 bags were seized which were of a total quantity of 14, 799 kgs. and of the total value of Rs. 2, 24, 800 in respect of which excise duty payable, but not paid, was Rs. 14, 583.90. The petitioner says that it has sold the goods covered by the consignments partly to Hariharan Textiles, Bombay, and partly to Bavani Textiles, Ichalkaranji, and that it has not received the value of consignments. The petitioner claims that it is a bona fide purchaser of yarn for value, and states that the only precaution that it could be expected to take was, to ensure whether the Excise Duty paid by it had been duly accounted for in the invoices. Beyond this precautions, it says, it would not be humanly possible for the purchaser to exercise any further check, or control to see whether the manufacturer had actually paid the duty or not, and so, according to the petitioner, the seizure and detention effected by the respondent of the goods in its hands and its agents, of which it was the owner, on the allegation of non-payment of excise duty by the manufacturer thereof amounted to penalizing an innocent and bona fide purchaser for value for no fault on its part. 3.Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 charges duty of excise on all excisable goods at the rates set forth in the First Schedule, and yarn is among such goods. Chapter II of the Act contains other provisions relating to restriction on possession of excisable goods, power of Courts to order forfeitures, recovery of sums due to Government, offences and penalties as well as for application of the provisions of Act VIII of 1878, of Central excise duties. Section 12 authorises the Central Government to declare by notification in the Official Gazette that any of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, relating to the levy on and exemption from customs duties, drawback of duty, warehousing, offences and appeals shall, with such modifications and alterations as it may consider necessary or desirable to adapt them to the circumstances, be applicable in regard to like matters in respect of the duties imposed by Section 3. In exercise of this power, the Government of India notified on May 4, 1963, which was amended on February 6, 1965, that the provisions mentioned therein, including Section 110 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962, relating to matters specified therein should be applicable in regard to like matters in respect of the duties imposed by Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act subject to the stated modifications or alterations for purposes of adaptation. Chapter III of the Act deals with powers of arrest and to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents, in inquiries under the Act, procedure for searches and arrest, and certain other matters including punishment for vexatious search, seizures etc. Chapter IV is concerned with transport by sea, and Chapter V with special provisions relating to salt. The next Chapter provides for adjudication of confiscations and penalties. Where by the rules made under the Act anything is liable to confiscation, or any person is liable to penalty, such confiscation or penalty may be adjudged by the officers mentioned therein subject to the limits specified. There is an option provided for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. Appeals to the Central Board of Revenue, and Revision by Central Government are also provided for in this Chapter. In the last Chapter, supplemental provisions are found which provide for power of the Central Government to make rules to carry into effect the purposes of the Act and in particular, in respect of the specified matters. Section 40 provides for bar of suits and limitation of suits and other legal proceedings. Rule 9 of the rules framed under the act which deals with time and manner of payment of duty, provides by sub-rule (1) that no excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are produced, cured or manufactured until the excise duty leviable thereon has been paid at such place and in such manner as is prescribed in the rules, or as the Collector may require, and expect on presentation of an application in the proper form and on obtaining the permission of the proper officer on the form. Sub-rule (2) of this rule, which is important for this case, says that if any excisable goods are, in contravention of sub-rule (1) deposited in, or removed from, any place specified therein, the producer or manufacturer thereof shall pay the duty leviable on such goods upon written demand made by the proper officer and shall also be liable to a penalty which may extend to two thousand rupees, and such goods shall be liable to confiscation. Under Rule 52 when the manufacturer desires to remove goods on payment of duty, either from place or a premise specified under Rule 9 or from a store-room or other place of storage approved by the Collector under Rule 47, he shall make application in triplicate to the proper officer in the proper form and shall deliver it to the officer at least twelve hours before it is intended to remove the goods, and then the officer shall assess the amount of duty due on the goods, and on production of evidence that this sum has been paid, allow the goods to be cleared. Rule 52A directs that no excisable goods shall be delivered from a factory except under a gate pass in the proper form. The rule envisage that excisable goods should first be assessed to duty by the proper Central Excise Officers, and then the duty so assessed should be paid either in cash in a treasury, or adjusted in the Personal Ledger Account before the goods are permitted to be cleared from the factory, and that at the time of clearance of excisable goods, the manufacturers are required to issue a gate pass, which should be signed by the owner of the factory and counter-signed by the proper Central Excise Officer. As this procedure known as 'Physical Control' procedure caused inconvenience, and also out of a desire on the part of the Government to repose greater trust and confidence in the Trade and Industry and with a view to lessening the administrative burden on the Central Excise Department and to avoid the avoidable complaints of harassment from the Trade, a partial relaxation of the procedure was made in 1962 by introducing what was called the Audit Type of control. According to this procedure which is also called 'Self Removal Procedure', the manufacturers are enabled to clear the excisable goods, produced by them, on their own, without the necessity of the Central Excise Officers being present for either assessment of the goods or for granting clearances. The benefit of this procedure has been extended to almost all the manufacturers of excisable goods, subject to certain exceptions. We are told that the withdrawal of the physical control procedure has necessitated introduction of detailed accounts, thorough inspection thereof to ensure proper assessment and payment of duty, and also stringent penalty rules, so that the new facility is not abused. Under rules, it is mandatory for each manufacture to open and maintain a 'Personal Ledger' Account in the prescribed form. If he is working under the procedure prescribed in Section 56-A read with Rule 179-K, he shall maintain another account in Form R.G. 23. The Personal Ledger Account and R.G. 23 must be prepared in triplicate of which the original and duplicate should be sent to the Central Excise Officer in charge along with the prescribed return in Form R.T. 12 within the prescribed time. Duty on each clearance should be paid by the assessee by making debit entry in the Personal Ledger Account prior to the removal of the goods outside the factory premises or for being taken into use inside the factory premises. If any goods are removed from the factory without such debit entry, they will be treated as non-duty paid. All removables of excisable goods from a factory or a warehouse to which the Self Removal Procedure applies, should be covered by a Gate Pass, delivery note, dispatch advice, invoice etc. The rate and amount of duty assessed and paid by the assessee on each consignments has to be shown on the Gate Pass. It should also be signed by the assessee, or by his duly authorized agent. But the Gate Pass is not required to be countersigned by any Central Excise Officer at any stage either before a blank book is brought into use, or at the time of clearance of the goods. Under the Self Removal Procedure, therefore, the Gate Pass constitutes the basic document on which the goods can be cleared from the factory without any physical supervision whatsoever of the Central Excise Officers. Under the Self Removal Procedure, therefore, the Gate Pass constitutes the basic document on which the goods can be cleared from the factory without any physical supervision whatsoever of the Central Excise Officers. The documents recovered from the petitioner's premises, as it is stated, do show that excise duty had been paid on the goods concerned at the time of their clearance. But, according to the respondent, actually no corresponding debit entries had been made against clearance of the relative consignment in the Personal Ledger Account that the Gate Passes themselves were bogus, that, therefore, these goods were non-duty paid, and that as such they were liable to confiscation. On the other hand, according to the petitioner, the Gate Passes, the invoices and the consignment notes were the only means by which it could satisfy ifself whether duty had been paid and being the case, it was but an innocent purchaser of the goods which could not be legally proceeded with by seizure and confiscation in its hands. 4.Though on behalf of the petitioner elaborate arguments have been addressed to us in the light of the rules in Chapter VII-A and Chapter XI, of the rule, the respondent has, in our view, rightly relied on Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, read with Section 110 of the Customs Act, as has been made applicable to the Central Excises and Salt Act, and has categorically stated that he has not invoked Rules 173-Q and 230 of the Central Excise Rules in support of the legality of the seizure. In our opinion, the goods, in question, as alleged by the respondent, being non-duty paid, their removal from the premises was in direct contravention of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, and such goods under-sub-rule (2) of the Rule shall, among other things, be liable to confiscation. There is nothing in the rules to suggest that such goods shall be free from liability to confiscation the moment they have left hands of, or control from the producer or manufacturer thereof, to the possession or ownership or be of a third party, be he a bone fide innocent purchaser. There is nothing in the rules to suggest that such goods shall be free from liability to confiscation the moment they have left hands of, or control from the producer or manufacturer thereof, to the possession or ownership or be of a third party, be he a bone fide innocent purchaser. Having a regard to the terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, we are of the view that any excisable goods removed without payment of duty from any place where they are produced or manufactured, shall be liable to confiscation wherever such goods are traced or in whosoever ownership or control they may be. The liability attaches to the non-duty paid exciable goods removed in contravention of Rule 9(1) and runs with them. If that were not, so the whole purpose of Rule 9 can easily be defeated by removing the goods without payment of duty from the premises of their production or manufacture, and passing possession or ownership thereof from the producer or manufacturer to a third party. Innocence or bona fides of such a third party does not appear to be relevant to liability of such goods to confiscation. The rule makes liability of the offending goods to confiscation an absolute one, not depending on the mens rea of any one. 5.The provisions in Chapter III of the Excises and Salt Act do envisage powers of the Excise officers to search and seize offending goods, that is to say, excisable goods which have been removed from the premises of their production, or manufacture without payment of duty thereon. In fact, Section 22 provides for remedy against vexatious search and seizure by Excise Officers. As we noticed earlier, Section 12 enables the Central Government by notification to adapt for purposes of the Central Excise Duties the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and that in exercise of this power, Section 110 of the Customs Act, among other provisions, has been adapted by the Central Government for purposes of the Excises and Salt Act. Under that section, if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, he may seize goods. This is the power which the respondent has invoked, and we think rightly so in this case. There is, therefore, no substance in the petitioner's contention that the seizure of the goods was illegal. Under that section, if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, he may seize goods. This is the power which the respondent has invoked, and we think rightly so in this case. There is, therefore, no substance in the petitioner's contention that the seizure of the goods was illegal. 6.We also think that there is no force in the petitioner's contention that the power aforesaid of seizure of the offending goods would violate the fundamental rights of an innocent purchaser like the petitioner, as he claims, for value, under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The power of seizure in itself is justified by the fact that is applied to the offending goods. If excisable goods are removed without payment of duty in violation of Rule 9(1), a such non-duty paid goods are liable to confiscation under sub-rule (2) of that Rule. As we have already held the liability is not dependent because the offending goods have passed hands either in possession, or ownership, or both from the producer or manufacturer to a third party for value and bona fide. The power conferred upon the Excise Officers by Section 12 of the Excises and Salt Act, read with Section 110 of the Customs Act and the relative notifications of the Central Government to seize such goods liable to confiscation, is necessarily reasonable and in public interest, inasmuch as it is intended to effectuate the purposes of the Excises and Salt Act, and safeguard the revenue legitimately due to the Union. 7.The petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.