1995 (1) TMI 73 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of seizures dated 23rd August, 1994 and 14th September, 1994; Mandamus for directing release of seized goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the quashing of seizures dated 23rd August, 1994, and 14th September, 1994, and a mandamus for the release of the seized goods. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing Polyester Zip Fasteners and narrow woven fabric, claimed exemption from Central Excise duty for zip fasteners and narrow woven fabrics, as they were registered under Small Scale Industries. The preventive officers seized Polyester Filament yarns, the raw material for Zip Fasteners, from the petitioner's premises on 23rd August, 1994. The petitioner applied for provisional release of the seized goods on 25th August, 1994, but no orders were passed. Subsequently, zip rolls were seized on 14th September, 1994. The petitioner contended that both Zip Fasteners and narrow woven fabrics were exempt from Excise Duty, citing an amendment to Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. The petitioner alleged that the respondent-authority's failure to release the seized goods was mala fide and illegal.

The Assistant Collector (Preventive) Central Excise, Meerut, in an order dated 30th September, 1994, directed the petitioner to produce documents supporting the purchase of the seized goods. The petitioner claimed that the Polyester Filament Yarn was purchased from other manufacturers and not manufactured by them, negating any violation of laws or payment of Excise Duty by the petitioner. The authority, in its order, indicated a reconsideration of the release of goods upon submission of supporting documents. The petitioner subsequently submitted relevant documents related to the purchases. The court directed the authority to issue fresh orders on the petitioner's claim for the release of goods, considering the total exemption claimed for both Zip Fasteners and narrow woven fabrics. The court emphasized the need for prompt action by the authority and instructed that orders be passed within one month of filing a certified copy of the order by the petitioner.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the authority to reconsider the release of goods based on the documents submitted by the petitioner. The court highlighted the importance of timely action by the authority and directed the issuance of a certified copy of the order to the petitioner's counsel within one week upon payment of necessary charges.