2017 (7) TMI 461 - HC - Central Excise

Release of seized cash - Held that - since the goods were seized more than 6 years ago, the Petitioner may not even be interested in release of the goods upon payment of the redemption fine. That is something for the Petitioner to decide. However, it by no means renders the impugned order illegal - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to impugned Order dated 6th February, 2017 passed by Assistant Commissioner.
2. Directions issued regarding confiscation of imported Aluminium Scrap and cash.
3. Petitioner's request for release of seized cash.
4. Contention regarding release of goods seized more than 6 years ago.
5. Legal validity of conditions imposed in the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The petition sought to set aside the impugned Order dated 6th February, 2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which included directions for confiscation of imported Aluminium Scrap and cash. The petitioner's prayer was to challenge this order.

2. The directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner included confiscation of 6075 Kgs of imported Aluminium Scrap and a cash amount seized at different premises. The order provided an option to redeem the goods on payment of a specified redemption fine and penalties.

3. The petitioner specifically sought the release of the cash seized. The Court noted that the Assistant Commissioner had already ordered for the release of the remaining cash after appropriation of the redemption fine and penalties. Thus, the petitioner's request was adequately addressed in the directions.

4. The petitioner's counsel raised concerns about the seized goods being held for over 6 years and suggested that the petitioner might not be interested in their release even on payment of the redemption fine. The Court acknowledged this but found no legal infirmity in the impugned order, stating that the conditions imposed adequately addressed the petitioner's concerns.

5. After considering the arguments presented, the Court dismissed the petition, concluding that the impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity and sufficiently addressed the issues raised by the petitioner. The Court found that the conditions imposed were legally valid and met the concerns of the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the petition.