2010 (10) TMI 876 - HC - Central Excise

Seizure - delay in releasing the goods and an executive fiat not to comply with the order dated 16-9-2010 passed by this Court. Held that - Despite the fact that the order directing release of the goods had been made long back whereby the applicants/respondents were directed to release the goods forthwith it is a matter of regret that the despite the fact that the applicants/original respondents have not challenged the said order before any higher forum they have not complied with the same which requires to be viewed seriously. However as a last opportunity the applicants/original respondents are directed to comply with the order dated 16-9-2010 passed by this Court Counsel for the applicants shall communicate this order to the concerned applicant/original respondents for necessary compliance all these three miscellaneous civil applications are dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Non-speaking order and lack of reasons in the interim order dated 16-9-2010.
2. Consideration of affidavits and contentions raised by the applicants/original respondents.
3. Reliance on judicial precedents and statutory provisions.
4. Scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
5. Compliance with the Court's order and allegations of abuse of process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-speaking order and lack of reasons in the interim order dated 16-9-2010:
The applicants/original respondents contended that the interim order dated 16-9-2010 did not contain any reasons, making it a non-speaking order. They argued that the Court, while directing the release of goods, did not consider the submissions and pleadings in the affidavits filed by the applicants. The applicants relied on the decisions of the apex court in State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, which emphasize that the right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system.

2. Consideration of affidavits and contentions raised by the applicants/original respondents:
The applicants highlighted that despite relying on the decision of the apex court in Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, which mandates careful consideration of statutory functionaries' powers, the Court did not address this in its order. They also pointed out that the Court did not consider the provisions of Section 110A of the Customs Act, which were raised in their affidavits. The applicants argued that the Court's order should have required the opponent/original petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee or cash security.

3. Reliance on judicial precedents and statutory provisions:
The applicants referenced several judicial precedents, including Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others, to support their arguments. They also cited the decision of the Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another, emphasizing the need for specific findings on various issues raised by the applicants.

4. Scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The opponent/original petitioner argued that the review applications were beyond the scope of review as contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. They contended that there was no apparent error in the order dated 16-9-2010 and that the proper remedy for the applicants was to challenge the order before an appropriate forum. They relied on the decisions of the apex court in Parison Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others and the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat University, Ahmedabad v. Miss Sonal P. Shah and Others.

5. Compliance with the Court's order and allegations of abuse of process:
The opponent/original petitioner argued that the present applications were an abuse of the process of the court. They pointed out that the applicants had not complied with the surveyor's report, which required the release of goods. The Court noted the applicants' wavering and adamant stand not to release the goods, indicating a lack of bona fide intention. The Court directed the applicants to comply with the order dated 16-9-2010 within six days, failing which the concerned officer would have to appear before the Court and show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the review applications were beyond the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. It held that the interim order was passed after considering the surveyor's report and other materials on record, and the revenue's interest was protected by requiring the opponent/petitioner to furnish a bond for the disputed amount. The Court dismissed the review applications and directed compliance with the order dated 16-9-2010, warning of potential contempt proceedings for non-compliance. The main petitions were scheduled for further hearing on 27th October 2010.

← Previous Next →