2018 (11) TMI 159 - AT - Central Excise

Provisional release of trucks - 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 - transfer of vehicles on the ground that the appellant being resident of Bangalore and the vehicles are not complied with the Bharath Stage-IV Emission norms as per the order of NGT / Supreme Court - Held that - When the respondent refused to release the vehicles, the appellant approached the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon ble High Court directed the appellant to produce affidavit of the original owner before the authorities for provisional release of the vehicles. But in spite of the affidavit of the original owner filed by the appellant, the respondent did not provisionally release the vehicles simply on the ground that the appellant has not become its owner so far. Having furnished all these 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, 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:
Application for 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 case involved a situation where trucks loaded with goods were seized under the Customs Act due to suspected evasion of central excise duty. The appellant, claiming ownership of the seized trucks, requested provisional release, but the request was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Tax. The appellant then approached the High Court, which directed the authorities to consider the representation for release. The appellant provided evidence of purchase, possession, and attempts at ownership transfer, including cash receipts, delivery notes, and rejection letters from the Regional Transport Authority (RTO). The appellant argued that ownership was established despite non-transfer in RTO records due to the seizure. The appellant cited legal precedents to support the claim that the original owner's affidavit should be considered as evidence for release.

The appellant contended that the impugned order failed to consider all documents and that ownership of the seized trucks was not in dispute, except for non-transfer due to seizure. The appellant argued that the High Court's direction to produce the original owner's affidavit should have led to provisional release. The appellant emphasized cooperation with authorities, regular tax payments, and lack of connection between the seized goods and alleged duty evasion. The appellant requested release on furnishing a security bond.

The respondent opposed release, citing contradictions in statements and failure to establish ownership transfer of the seized trucks to the appellant. However, after considering submissions and evidence, the tribunal found that the appellant had purchased the trucks, paid in full, and taken possession. The RTO rejection was due to emission norms compliance issues, advising registration in Bangalore. Despite the High Court's directive and evidence provided, the respondent did not release the trucks on the grounds of non-ownership. The tribunal, considering the evidence and legal precedents, directed the release of the seized trucks to the appellant on furnishing security bonds, with instructions not to dispose of the vehicles during the case's pendency.

In conclusion, the tribunal ordered the provisional release of the seized trucks to the appellant upon furnishing security bonds, emphasizing the appellant's ownership based on purchase, possession, and documentary evidence, despite non-transfer in RTO records. The decision highlighted the importance of considering all relevant documents and legal precedents in such cases to ensure fair treatment and adherence to legal principles.