2016 (10) TMI 388 - HC - Central Excise

Restoration of the possession of premises - Continued occupation of the two premises of the petitioner by the Commissioner of Central Excise - confiscation of goods with an option to pay redemption fine - appellant chose the confiscation of goods - in the course of seizure proceedings custody of several coolers taken by the Commissioner of Central Excise - Held that - It is not disputed that the petitioners did not deposit the redemption fine amount. As a consequence the goods have been vested with the respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise and the order-in-original having been made on 30.11.2015 the respondent should have ensured that the premises i.e. two immovable properties were restored to the petitioners at the earliest time feasible. The continued occupation of the said two premises is palpably unreasonable - a direction is issued to the respondent to ensure that the vacant and peaceful possession of both the premises which are the subject matter of the present writ petitions are handed over to the petitioners on or before 15.10.2016. - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Continued occupation of premises by Commissioner of Central Excise despite order of seizure and confiscation.
2. Failure of petitioners to deposit redemption fine resulting in the premises not being vacated.
3. Unreasonable occupation of premises by Commissioner of Central Excise.
4. Court's direction for handing over vacant possession of premises to petitioners.

Analysis:
In the present case, the petitioners raised concerns regarding the continued occupation of their premises by the Commissioner of Central Excise despite an order of seizure and confiscation of goods. The petitioners were given an option to pay a redemption fine of &8377; 75 lacs in lieu of confiscation of goods, but they chose confiscation without depositing the fine. The Court noted that the petitioners did not deposit the redemption fine amount, leading to the goods remaining with the Commissioner of Central Excise. Consequently, the premises were not restored to the petitioners, which was deemed unreasonable by the Court.

The Court found the occupation of the premises by the Commissioner of Central Excise to be palpably unreasonable. As a result, the Court issued a direction to the respondent to ensure that the vacant and peaceful possession of both premises, subject to the writ petitions, be handed over to the petitioners by a specified date. The Court ordered that the possession should be handed over on or before 15.10.2016. Additionally, the respondent was directed to file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit confirming compliance with the Court's order within two weeks.

Ultimately, the writ petitions were allowed by the Court in the terms mentioned above. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring the rightful possession of the premises to the petitioners and highlighted the need for compliance with the Court's directions by the concerned official.