2008 (10) TMI 96 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claimed of the amount deposited by the petitioners under threat of arrest - petitioner pray for not taking any coercive action of arrest or detention held that unless there is assessment and demand, amount deposited cannot be appropriated detention of goods for indefinite period is not justified - respondent is directed to return the amount deposited and release the goods on furnishing undertaking in terms identical to the terms in Form B-11 without any bank guarantee/cash security

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of search and seizure, refund of deposited amount, return of records, coercive action against petitioners, validity of provisional release conditions.

Quashing of Search and Seizure:
The petition sought to quash the search and seizure conducted by the Commissioner of Central Excise and refund the amount deposited under duress. The petitioner firm manufactured Aluminum and Zinc Alloy Ingots, with the raw material mainly imported and custom duty paid credited to the CENVAT account. The search was conducted at the factory, and the petitioners requested copies of seized documents and provisional release of goods, which was not granted. The respondents alleged evasion of duty based on various grounds, including fake bills, unaccounted sale of Dross, and diversion of finished goods.

Refund of Deposited Amount:
The petitioners deposited a sum under duress, while the respondents claimed it was voluntary. The court held that unless there is an assessment and demand, the amount cannot be appropriated. The petitioners were entitled to a refund as no justification was provided for retaining the amount, which was deposited voluntarily or under coercion.

Validity of Provisional Release Conditions:
The court analyzed the reasonableness of conditions for the provisional release of seized goods. It was noted that the seizure aimed to safeguard revenue against duty evasion, but goods cannot be detained indefinitely without a clear prima facie case for confiscation. The court found the conditions for release to be unreasonable, especially without a clear case for forfeiture. The court directed the immediate return of the deposited amount and release of goods without any bank guarantee or cash security.

In conclusion, the court partly allowed the petition, directing the return of the deposited amount and release of goods on a specific undertaking without additional security. The petitioners were also permitted to obtain copies of all records at their cost, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.