9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in time bound manner but in respect of seizure of documents or things there is no time limit for the issuance of the SCN. Held that:- Following the of Rohit Kumar vs. Union of India, [2001 (12) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA] & Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. Euroasia Global, [2009 (3) TMI 199 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] first part of the communication for withholding the amount of drawback released in favour of the petitioner is legal and within the jurisdiction of the revenue. However second part of the order of remitting the amount to the revenue is not contemplated under Section 110(3) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find that the petitioner is entitled to release of the amount of duty drawback. The said amount shall remain a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permitted to be exported, therefore, the petitioner was rightly granted credit of the duty drawback in terms of the Customs Act 1962 (for short the 'Act') more particularly in terms of the provisions of Section 76 of the Act thereof. Therefore, without any adjudication of the fact that the duty drawback has been rightly drawn by the petitioner or not or even without issuing any show cause notice, the authorities cannot issue directions to the Bank for transfer of the amount to the accounts of the revenue. It is also argued that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has recorded the statement of the proprietary of the petitioner on 27.4.2012 under threat and coercion which statement has been retracted by the petitioner while submitting re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02 (141) E.L.T. 27 (Cal.) and also an order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. Euroasia Global, 2009(236) E.L.T. 627 (SC), wherein the power of seizure and confiscation under Section 110(3) was scrutinized in the identical circumstances. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the communication dated 04.06.2012 (Annexure P-4) is in two parts i.e. one of not releasing the payment to the petitioner and the second is to transfer the amount to the revenue. In terms of Section 110(3) of the Act, the revenue has a power of seizure and not of appropriation. The power of seizure is pending adjudication as to whether the documents or the things seized are liable to be confiscated and in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the view prima facie that before adjudication, in exercise of writ jurisdiction on the facts of this case, the High Court ought not to have granted unconditional release of the cash. In fact, we called upon the learned counsel for the respondent to give a bank guarantee. The respondent is not in a position to give a bank guarantee for the amount which he had already withdrawn. The Calcutta High Court in Rohit Kumar's Case (Supra) held that the revenue has power to seize money lying in the Bank accounts in terms of power conferred under Section 110(3) of the Act. It observed as under: 20. Therefore, I accept the argument of Mr. Roychowdhury and Mr. Sen that the meaning and connotation of the word things as defined in Black's La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
