2011 (1) TMI 344 - AT - Central Excise

Stay application - Seizure - Time barred - It is also coming out from the department that they have acted on the basis of an order under Section 37B issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs - Unless otherwise warranted under law, seizure without cogent reasons and without proper authority, shall never get approval of the higher Court - the authority in disguise has directed the Additional Commissioner to issue the order without fairly acting on the face of the record, it is high time to complete the adjudication in accordance with law to remove hardship to the assessee - stay application and appeal is disposed of

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Provisional assessment and duty payment
2. Seizure of goods and Show Cause Notice issuance
3. Adjudication process and cooperation with the department
4. High Court writ petition and departmental actions
5. Release of seized goods and removal of undue hardship
6. Tribunal's interference and completion of adjudication

Analysis:

1. Provisional assessment and duty payment: The appellant sought expeditious disposal of the stay application due to the order disallowing provisional assessment. The appellant was advised to pay duty under protest or without protest. The Tribunal noted the appellant's willingness to cooperate for early adjudication based on a Show Cause Notice issued earlier.

2. Seizure of goods and Show Cause Notice issuance: The appellant mentioned certain seizures and a Show Cause Notice issued during the adjudication process. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's concern regarding the seizures and emphasized the need for fair action by the authorities to prevent undue hardship to the appellant.

3. Adjudication process and cooperation with the department: The appellant requested the release of seized goods to avoid business disruption and urged the department to expedite the adjudication process. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of completing adjudication promptly to prevent further hardship to the appellant.

4. High Court writ petition and departmental actions: The Tribunal criticized the premature actions of the authority while a writ petition was pending before the High Court. It highlighted the need for fair and lawful conduct by the authorities, directing the immediate release of any seized goods to prevent prejudice to the Revenue.

5. Release of seized goods and removal of undue hardship: The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the authority's actions and interference during the adjudication process. It emphasized the need to complete adjudication in accordance with the law to alleviate hardship faced by the appellant and restore public confidence in the judicial process.

6. Tribunal's interference and completion of adjudication: Despite the Tribunal's initial reluctance to interfere due to a heavy caseload, it decided to address the injustice faced by the appellant. The Tribunal directed the release of seized goods and stressed the importance of completing the adjudication process fairly and expeditiously to uphold the rule of law and protect the interests of all parties involved.