2021 (12) TMI 1314 - HC - Central Excise

Retention of documents seized in course of search and seizure proceedings - whether the respondents concerned are entitled to retain the documents, if the same are not relied upon documents in view of Rule 24A of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 - HELD THAT - Petition are are disposed of by directing the Respondent No.2/Adjudicating Authority to consider the case of the petitioner for return of the documents, which the Adjudicating Authority does not want to rely upon and return the same to the petitioner as per Rule 24A of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering its submission, the Respondent No.2/ Adjudicating Authority, if comes to a conclusion that the documents, which the petitioner are asking for return are not to be relied upon in adjudication proceedings in question. The whole exercise must be completed by the Respondent No.2/ Adjudicating Authority concerned within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks return of seized documents not relied upon in adjudication - Interpretation of Rule 24A of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta, in the case of WPA 9985 of 2021 and CAN 1/2021, addressed the petitioner's grievance regarding the retention of documents seized during search and seizure proceedings by the respondent authority. The petitioner contended that the respondents were not entitled to retain documents not relied upon, citing Rule 24A of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. After hearing the arguments from both parties, the court directed the Respondent No.2/Adjudicating Authority to consider the petitioner's request for the return of documents not intended for use in the adjudication proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to review the case, provide a hearing to the petitioner, and if deemed unnecessary for the proceedings, return the documents in question within four weeks from the date of the court's order. The court specified that the return of documents should be limited to those seized during the search and seizure process.

Moreover, the court clarified that since the writ petition was resolved without the need for affidavits, any allegations in the petition contradicting the record would be considered denied by Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate representing the respondents. This judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring that seized documents not relevant to the adjudication process are promptly returned to the rightful owner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 24A of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.