S.N. Phnkan. J.— This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying inter alia, that a certificate dated 7.8.87 issued by the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes, Mizoram, Aizwal by which it was certified that the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 is not applicable to the State of Mizoram may be set aside. It may further be stated that a civil suit being Title Suit No. 9 of 1987 is pending before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judl) Aizwal on this point and accordingly the petitioner i.e. the Union of India has prayed that all orders etc. passed under the said suit may be quashed. Against the interim order passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) Union of India had approached to this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27.1.88 in M.A.(F) No. 7 of 19^8 directed the Union of India and others to take appropriate steps before the learned trial Court. 2. It is necessary to state briefly the facts of this case which are as follows; M/s North Eastern Tobacco, respondent No. 3 has got a factory for manufacturing cigarette in the State of Mizoram. On 31.10.87, 272 Nos. C.F.Cs of Panama Virginia Cigarettes (1 CFC contains 12,000/ cigarette sticks) at a place called Dholai Bazar, District of Cachar within the State of Assam were seized by the officers of Custom and Central Excise Department. The goods were seized on the ground that the goods were excisable and duty payable, the said duty not having paid the Rule 9 (1) and other provisions of the Rules of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 framed under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, for short, 'the Act' were violated. Similarly other cigarettes and cut tobacco belonging to respondent No. 3 were also seized. The goods are in the custody of the Central Excise Department, opposite party No. 3 filed a Title Suit No. 9 of 1987 before the learned Additional Deputy Comm­issioner (Judl), Aizwal challenging the seizure mainly on the ground that the Act does not apply to the State of Mizoram and as such no excise duty is payable on cigarettes manufactured and sold in the factory belonging to opposite party No. 3 situated in the State of Mizoram. The basis for filing the above suit is the certificate granted by the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes on 7.8.87 wherein it was stated that the said Act "does not Appear to be extended to Mizoram since Mizoram was an excluded area during that period. Hence, the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 is not applicable in Mizoram.'' In the suit injunction was prayed for restraining the defendants inter alia, from interfering with the works of the affairs of the said factory, from recovery of any Central Excise Duty and further for directing the present petitioners to release the seized goods and records. The copy of the certificate granted by the Commissioner is at Annexure - 1 to the petition. A temporary injunction was also issued by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Aizwal. Against the order of ad interim injunction dated 23.12,87 the present petitioners approached this Court and by order dated 27.1.88 passed in M.A. (F) No. 7/88 this Court disposed of the said appeal with a direction to the learned trial Court to hear the injunction matter along with the point taken that the civil suit was not maintainable and was barred. From the copy of the order annexed and also the allegations made before us we find that the present petitioners wanted to dispose of by auction the seized goods which was stayed by the learned trial Court. On perusal of the order dated 7.3.88 passed by the learned lower Court, we find that Court also fixed a date for hearing of the prelimin­ary issues. But in spite of the said order present petition has been filed. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the certificate dated 7.9.87 issued by the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes, Mizoram and the proceeding of the Title Suit No. 9 of 1987 pending before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Aizwal and all orders passed therein. 3. Main point to be decided in this proceeding is whether Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 is applicable to the State of Mizotam. Learned counsel for the parties have urged various points before us which are not necessary for consideration in detail. 4. Section 91 of the Government of India Act, 1935 empowers His Majesty to declare any area by an order in Council us "excl­uded area" and "partially excluded area". Learned counsel for the parties have urged various points before us which are not necessary for consideration in detail. 4. Section 91 of the Government of India Act, 1935 empowers His Majesty to declare any area by an order in Council us "excl­uded area" and "partially excluded area". Section 92 of the; said Act, inter alia, provides that the Executive Authority of a. Province extends to exclude and partially excluded area, but no Act of Federal Legislature or of Provincial Legislature, shall apply to an excluded area unless the Governor by public notification so directs. An order dated 3.3.1936 was promulgated by His Majesty in Council and the said order is called Government of India (Excluded and Partially Excluded) Areas Order, 1936. This order specifies the areas which were declared as partially excluded area and excluded area. We find from Part -1 to the Schedule, the list of excluded areas in erstwhile Province of Assam and the Lushai Hills District was included in the said part. There is no dispute that Lusaai Hills District was subsequently renamed as Mizo Hills District and the present State of Mizoram consists of the entire Lushai Hills District. Sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Act as it stood 'originally' provided that Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 would extend to the whole of British India. In view of the above provision of section 92 of the Government of India Act, 1935, this Act did not automatically apply to the excluded or partially excluded area. By notification No.Ex/24/44-G.S. dated 7.8.1944, the Governor of Assam in exercise of powers conferred by section 92 of the Government of India Act, 1935 directed that the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 shall apply to the excluded area in Assam with the modification specified in the said notification. The modification was that sections 24,30,32 and 38 shall be omitted from the said Act for the purpose of its application to the excluded area. Thus we find that the Act in question namely, the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was made applicable with the aforesaid modification to the erstwhile Lushai Hills District now included within the State of Mizoram. It is settled law that once an Act is made applicable to any particular area, it shall continue to do so unless it is repealed by a competent authority. It is settled law that once an Act is made applicable to any particular area, it shall continue to do so unless it is repealed by a competent authority. Nothing has been brought to our notice that application of this Act was barred by any competent Legislature to the areas now included in the State of Mizoram. We may conveniently state that the provisions of India (Provincial Constitution) Order, 1947, inter alia, provided that each of the Dominions and all Provinces shall be governed with appropriate modification by the Government of India Act, 1935 and further that the Indian (Adaptation of Existing Indian Laws) Order, 1947 provided conti­nuance of law of British India with modification mentioned in the said order. The Indian Independence Act, 1947 provided and so also Article 372 of the Constitution of India that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution shall continue in force. Union Territory of Mizoram came into existence under the provisions of the North-Eastern Areas (Re-organisation) Act, 1971 and section 71 of the Act alt central laws applicable before enforcement of the said Act shall continue to be in force after the creation of the said Union Territory. Article 371 G is a special provision in respect of the State of Mizoram regarding application of certain categories of law to the said State and this Article specifically provided that it shall not apply to any Central Act in force in the Union Territory of Mizoram immediately before commencement of the Constitution (53rd amendment) Act, 1986, by which this Article was inserted. 5. Situated thus, we can hold that the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 which was made applicable to the excluded area of Lushai Hills District continues to be in force in the areas now included in the State of Mizoram. 6. We are well aware that ignorance of law is no excuse but we cannot shut our eyes to the peculiar constitutional position of the North Eastern Region regarding applicability of Central or Provincial Act enacted before independence of this country. 6. We are well aware that ignorance of law is no excuse but we cannot shut our eyes to the peculiar constitutional position of the North Eastern Region regarding applicability of Central or Provincial Act enacted before independence of this country. Even Hon'ble Supreme Court had difficulties to find out the app­licability of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 to a part of Shilloog Town known as 'Administered Area1 (See M/s Hardeodas Jaganath vs. State of Assam, AIR 1970 SC 742; and also the long title of the Meghalaya (Adaptation and Application of Laws) Act, 1971). We have also noted the controversy that arose regarding application of the Provident Funds Act, 1952 to areas falling within Meghalaya under the VI th Schedule to the Constitution and the matter came up for consideration before a Special Bench of this Court consisting of 5 Hon'ble Judges and we understand the matter is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. Mr. Borthakur has taken us through the VI th Schedule to the Constitution and some Adoption Orders issued by the State of Mizoram in support of his contention that this Act does not apply to the State of Mizoram. But we need not consider these points as in our opinion the Act clearly applies to the State of Mizoram in view of the notification dated 7tn August 1944, stated above. 8. We do not propose to express any opinion on the certificate given by the Commissioner of Excise and Taxes Mizoram, Aizwal in view of the orders which we propose to pass in the present petition. We leave it to the learned trial Court to decide this point. 9. Mr. Borthakur has urged that the respondents have been harassed by the officers of the Custom and Central Excise Dep­artment and in this connection Mr. Borthakur has given a, long list of proceedings, and cases initiated by the officers of the Custom and Central Excise Department. Mr. Das, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel has stated that he is not aware of any such harassment and he has assured us that if such harassment has been made, steps would be taken to stop it. In view of assurance given by Mr.Das, the respondents shall not be harassed by the petitioners unnecessarily and it wilt proceed strictly in accordance with law, 10. Standing Counsel has stated that he is not aware of any such harassment and he has assured us that if such harassment has been made, steps would be taken to stop it. In view of assurance given by Mr.Das, the respondents shall not be harassed by the petitioners unnecessarily and it wilt proceed strictly in accordance with law, 10. In view of the orders passed by this Court in M.A. (F) No.7 of 1988, we deem it fit and proper to direct the present petitioners to go and appear before the learned Court to obtain necessary orders. 11. In the result, we hold that the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 is applicable to the State of Mizoram and direct the present petitioners to obtain necessary orders from the learned trial Court in the pending trial suit. Steps may be taken for realising the' duty due under the Act. We make it clear that if any such proceeding is started, the respondents shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and that too after the matter is disposed of by the learned trial Court. With the above dicction, the petition is disposed of. No costs