2013 (10) TMI 569 - HC - Central Excise

Release of Cash Seized Held that - In the earlier writ petition against was filed and decided on 29.11.2010 the petitioner could not explain as to why the reply has not been filed to the show cause notice issued as long back as on 7.7.2008 - the reply has not been filed to the show cause notice so far. Shri B.C. Rai states that the preparation of reply is under process - We are unable to appreciate as to why the petitioner did not seek for release of cash in the writ petition filed earlier and as to why he has taken six years time to make an application for release of cash and has relied upon the provisions which are not attracted in the case - the Commissioner of Central Excise has not rejected the application for release of cash - He has only deferred the application until the adjudication is complete - the petitioner had not filed the reply to the show cause notice for last five years there is no reason to interfere in the matter Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for release of seized cash deferred until adjudication.
2. Applicability of Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 in the case.
3. Delay in filing reply to show cause notice.
4. Failure to seek release of cash in earlier writ petition.
5. Non-appearance before the Adjudicating Authority on scheduled dates.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner's application for the release of seized cash was deferred by the Central Excise Authorities pending adjudication. The petitioner argued that the impugned order did not consider the powers vested in the Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, applicable to seizures made under the Central Excise Act, 1944, relying on Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The court noted that the earlier writ petition had allowed the return of non-relied upon documents and hard copies of relied upon documents. The Special Appeal filed against this order clarified that witnesses whose statements were relied upon needed to be made available for cross-examination during adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and fair play.

3. Despite the delay in filing a reply to the show cause notice issued in 2008, the petitioner had not submitted the reply even after five years. The court expressed concerns over the prolonged delay in responding to the notice.

4. The court questioned the petitioner's failure to seek the release of cash in the earlier writ petition and the subsequent delay of six years in making the application, relying on provisions not applicable to the case. The judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the petitioner was deemed irrelevant as it pertained to the Customs Act, not the Excise Act.

5. The respondents argued that Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 was not applicable for releasing seized goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act by the Central Excise Authorities, citing issued notifications under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner had deferred the application for release of cash until the adjudication was completed, noting the petitioner's non-appearance before the Adjudicating Authority on scheduled dates.

6. Considering the petitioner's failure to file the reply to the show cause notice for five years and the non-appearance before the Adjudicating Authority, the court declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the writ petition.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the court's decision and the legal arguments presented by the parties involved.