9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abhgarh, both owned by the petitioner company, what according to the respondents are automobile parts valuing Rs. 53,73.19,280/-. The petitioner also prays for a mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to return the bank guarantee which the petitioner has furnished for securing a provisional release of the seized goods in terms of an order dated 10-7-2009 (Annexure P-7). The challenge arises in the following circumstances :- The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of Excavators and Loaders etc. in its unit at Faridabad in the State of Haryana. Apart from the manufacturing unit set-up by it at Plot No. 55, Sector 6, Faridabad, the petitioner-company also has its unit at 23/7, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh where it packs, repacks, marks and affixes its Logo 'JCB' on the parts that are supplied to the petitioner-company by other manufacturers. 2. On the basis of an intelligence report received by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence that the petitioner-company was engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts in the unit mentioned above and that the same was not registered as required under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfaction of the terms and conditions stipulated in the order referred to above is not under challenge before us in these proceedings. The petitioner has all the same assailed the seizure of the goods and sought a writ of certiorari quashing the seizure memo and a mandamus directing return of the bank guarantee furnished by it, as already noticed above. 4. The challenge to the seizure of goods and the prayer for a mandamus directing return of the bank guarantee proceeds primarily on the basis that the goods in question do not answer the description of automobile parts referred to in Entry No. 100 in Schedule-III of the Act. According to the petitioner, the parts seized by the respondents from the premises of the petitioner-company are parts and components of earth removing machinery namely excavators and loaders which are not automobile parts within the meaning of entry referred to above. Reliance in support of that contention is placed by the petitioner-company upon Circulars dated 11-7-1990 and 16-12-2008. These circulars according to the Mr. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-company make it abundantly clear that excavators and loaders used as earth r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing in entry No. 100 of IIIrd Schedule has also been disputed by the respondents. According to them, the petitioner-company is not only engaged in the manufacture of excavators and loaders but also in all types of multi utility vehicles. Reliance is placed by the respondents upon a clarification issued by the Board that the term 'parts, components and assemblies' of automobiles includes items like batteries, brake assembly, tyres, tubes, flaps, IC engines, ball bearing etc. It is alleged that in the course of investigations conducted hithertofore, has revealed that the petitioner in its registered premises was manufacturing not only excavators but also other special/multi purpose and tyre mounted vehicles which required to be registered with the Road Transport Authorities. These vehicles cannot be treated as earth removing machinery like excavators. In conclusion, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. It was argued by Mr. Ghuman, learned counsel for the respondents that investigation of the case has been hampered by the petitioner on account of persistent default in furnishing the requisite information and data demanded by the officers conducting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was whether or not the parts that were seized in the course of search and seizure operation were parts of automobile referred to in entry No. 100 of IIIrd Schedule. According to the petitioner-company, they were not, while according to the respondents, they were automobile parts, packing, repacking or marking whereof would tantamount to manufacturing thereby obliging the petitioner-company to have the unit registered and to pay excise duty on the same before removing the goods for sale. Whether or not the parts seized from the petitioner's unit are automobile parts is a matter regarding which the Investigating Agency has yet to draw a final conclusion. The Investigating Officer has asked for information and is in the process of formulating a final opinion on the subject before any further action on the basis of any such conclusion is initiated against the petitioner. The question, therefore is whether we ought to intervene at this stage to scuttle any such investigation and quash the ongoing process by declaring that parts seized from the petitioner's unit are not actually automobile parts. Our answer is in the negative. We do not think that we would be justified in prejudging th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
