9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by excise officers from a small scale industry. 2. Compliance with Rule 206 of the Central Excise Rules. 3. Requirement of cash security for provisional release of seized goods. 4. Discretion of the Collector in demanding security for release of goods. 5. Justifiability of demanding cash security from a job worker for seized goods. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a small scale industry manufacturing springs and coils, had goods seized by excise officers for not being entered in the R.G. 1 register. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking release of the goods based on an agreement with the 3rd respondent and compliance with prescribed standards for Government projects. 2. The compliance with Rule 206 of the Central Excise Rules was a key issue. The court noted that the earlier writ petition did not dispense with Rule 206 requirements. Rule 206(3) allows for release of seized goods pending adjudication upon execution of a bond with security as required by the Collector. 3. The Deputy Collector demanded 25% cash security for the provisional release of seized goods, which the petitioner contested. The petitioner argued that being a job worker, it should not be burdened with such a requirement, especially as the goods were semi-manufactured and not fully completed. 4. The court deliberated on the Collector's discretion in demanding security for the release of goods. It emphasized that the Authority must exercise its duty judiciously and not mechanically enforce every aspect of Rule 206. The petitioner was willing to pay the excise duty and execute a bond but objected to the cash security requirement. 5. Considering the petitioner's status as a job worker and the stage of manufacturing of the goods, the court found the demand for cash security unjust and inequitable. It ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order for 25% cash security and modifying the bond requirement to exclude the clause about producing goods later in adjudication. 6. Ultimately, the court partly allowed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pay excise duty and execute a modified bond without the production clause. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
