9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition for return of seized goods valued over Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 482 CrPC. Analysis: The petition was filed by Ultramarine and Pigments Ltd. seeking the return of goods seized from their factory premises by the Preventive Division of the Central Excise Department. The goods were valued at Rs. 3,81,419.11 and were seized during a raid on 2-12-1982. The petitioner argued that the goods were not entered in the RGI register due to the factory closure from 19-11-1982 to 2-12-1982 and requested their return to prevent financial loss and deterioration of quality. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise rejected the petition, stating that the seized goods were considered material evidence for adjudication proceedings and could not be released at that stage. The petitioner, through their counsel, contended that Rule 206(3) allowed for the release of seized goods pending adjudication upon providing substantial security. They emphasized the risk of deterioration if the goods were not stored properly and requested their return to the firm's godowns. The Central Government Prosecutor opposed the petition, alleging deliberate contravention of Central Excise Rules by the petitioner to evade excise duty. They argued that the seized goods were vital for adjudication proceedings and could be tampered with if returned to the petitioner. The Prosecutor cited precedents to support the position that the court's intervention was not warranted during pending adjudication proceedings. The court, considering the statutory powers of the adjudicating authority under the Central Excise Act, dismissed the petition, stating that the property was still with the Central Excise department and not under the court's custody. The court highlighted the absence of criminal proceedings regarding the seized goods and emphasized the need for the department to safeguard the goods and expedite the adjudication process. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, advising the petitioner to seek relief through appropriate channels as per legal precedents. The court underscored the importance of safeguarding the valuable seized goods and urged the department to complete the investigation promptly to prevent any damage or spoilage.
|
