2018 (11) TMI 77 - AT - Central Excise

Provisional release of trucks - Clandestine manufacture and removal of pan masala and guthka - rejection of release of trucks on the ground that the ownership of the seized trucks are not transferred in the name of the appellant. Held that - Having furnished all the documents which clearly show that though he becomes owner of the vehicles from the day he has made the payment and taken the possession of the vehicles, there is no reason for the respondent not to release the said vehicles on provisional basis till the investigation is completed. The seized trucks bearing Registration No.AP07TC1323, AP07TB9819 and AP07TW7603, seized during the investigation, are directed to be released to the appellant on appellant furnishing the security bond of ₹ 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only) each for each of the trucks - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Provisional release of trucks under Section 110A of the Customs Act read with Section 12F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the Commissioner's order rejecting the application for provisional release of trucks seized during an investigation into illegal manufacturing and removal of pan masala and guthka. The appellant, claiming ownership of the trucks, had requested provisional release, supported by documents showing purchase and possession. The appellant's ownership was disputed due to non-transfer in RTO records.

The appellant argued that the impugned order failed to consider all documents, emphasizing the original owner's affidavit as evidence of ownership. Legal precedents were cited to support the claim. The appellant contended that the High Court's direction to produce the affidavit mandated provisional release, accusing the authority of non-compliance.

The respondent defended the order, highlighting contradictions in statements and the appellant's failure to establish ownership through official transfer. After reviewing submissions and evidence, the Judicial Member found the appellant had purchased, paid for, and possessed the trucks. The rejection by RTO, New Delhi was due to emission norms, advising registration in Bangalore. Despite the original owner's affidavit, the respondent refused provisional release based on non-transfer of ownership.

The Judicial Member ruled in favor of the appellant, noting full payment, possession, and transfer application as evidence of ownership. The trucks were directed to be provisionally released upon furnishing a security bond, with restrictions on disposal and obligation to produce the vehicles as needed. The appellant was instructed to provide security bonds for verification before release by the original authority, concluding the appeal on these terms.