9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red, until adjudication of the case as per related provisions in the matter. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the cash amounting to Rs.5,90,000/- (Panchnama dated 10.7.2007) and Rs.17,17,797/- ( Seizure Memo dated 26.12.2007) was seized by the Director General of Central Excise (Intelligence), New Delhi. He submits that the impugned order dated 8.5.2013 does not take into consideration the powers vested in the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, which are applicable where the seizure were made under the Central Excise Act, 1944, relying on provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act,1962. 4. It is submitted by Shri B.C. Rai, that earlier the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention, it is true that in view of the Adjudication Manual as also the judgement in Sanghi Textile Processors (P) Ltd. (supra), the assessee is entitled to the reasonable cost incurred for getting the copies of the documents. In the instant case, there is no dispute that a soft copy containing the documents has been made available. The grievance of the respondent was that he must be given hard copies of the documents as some of the documents are ineligible as shown from the soft copies. Considering the fact that the documents have been made available in the form of a C.D., one can read the same. In our opinion, that would amount to sufficient compliance though may not be strict compliance. In case, there are any documents, which are not cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We are informed that the reply has not been filed to the show cause notice so far. Shri B.C. Rai states that the preparation of reply is under process. 8. We are unable to appreciate as to why the petitioner did not seek for release of cash in the writ petition filed earlier and as to why he has taken six years' time to make an application for release of cash and has relied upon the provisions which are not attracted in the case. 9. The judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Patiala Casting Private Limited (2011) 11 SCC 562 cited by Shri B.C. Rai is a case relating to Customs Act and not under the Excise Act. 10. We may observe here that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut has not rejected the application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
