The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a 'reason to believe' before conducting a raid or seizure under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs Act, 1962.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of all the three writ petitions as common questions of law and fact are involved in all of them.

2. Petitioners in all these three petitions are companies registered under the provisions of Companies Act and are engaged in manufacture of TMT bars and rods, and allow steel falling under Chapter heading 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tarrif Act.

3. The petitioners have filed the present petitions challenging the Panchanama dated 20/8/2009 (Annexure P/1) stating that on 20/8/2009 a raid was conducted by the officers of Central Excise Department on the factory premises of petitioners companies and they have seized certain material, Said raid is challenged by the petitioners stating that the officers who have raided the premises have not recorded "reason to believe' as required by section 110 read with section 123 of the Customs Act and therefore, entire action of the respondents is illegal and contrary to law. It is, therefore, prayed that the Panchanama (Annexure P/1) and the consequential proceedings be quashed.

4. Respondents have filed their return denying the allegations made in the petitions. They contended that the officer who has conducted the raid has reason to believe that certain goods which are liable to be confiscated under the Central Excise Act, 1944 were with the petitioners.

5. The question, therefore, involved in these writ petitions is whether the officer who had conducted the raid has reason to believe and whether recording of the said reason to believe is necessary.

6. Counsel for the petitioners lay hands on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Rehman, AIR 1960 SC 210. In paragraph 6 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has laid down that under section 8 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, all searches made under the Act or the Rules made thereunder shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code relating to searches under it. Section 37 empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act, and, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, to make rules authorizing and regulating the inspection or search of any place in so far as such inspection or search is essential for the proper levy and collection of duties imposed by the Act. The Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by that section framed Rule 201 authorising itself to empower any officer of any department under its control to enter and search at any time by day or night any land, building, enclosed place, premises, vessel, conveyance or other place upon or in which he has reason to believe that excisable goods are processed, sorted, stored manufactured or carried in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The Apex Court has further held that it is manifest from the aforesaid provisions that the officer empowered by the Central Government can only make a search when he has reason to believe that excisable goods are processed, sorted, stored, manufactured or carried in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules.

7. So as per the aforesaid judgment, before entering into the premises of the petitioners, either for search or seizure, it was necessary for the officer conducting the raid to have reason to believe that some excisable goods are processed, sorted, stored or manufactured in contravention of the provisions of the Act.

8. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Durga Prasad vs. H.R. Gomes. Superintendent (Prevention) Central Excise, Nagpur, AIR 1966 SC 1209. In paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has held that we are therefore of opinion that the power of search under section 105 of the Customs Act is a power of general search. But it is essential that before this power is exercised, the preliminary conditions required by the section must be strictly satisfied, that is, the officer concerne