9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggarwala, Advocate ORDER 1. This is the second round of litigation emanating from an earlier order dated 29th February, 2016 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1775/2016, filed by this very Petitioner Rajesh Trehan. 2. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner opened a proprietary concern M/s. Rajesh Trehan in August, 2014 for the purpose of trading in LED TV panels and spare parts. The he said proprietary concern is stated to have a certificate of registration under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The Petitioner claims that the LED TV panels and spare parts were purchased from various importers against valid bills and C-Forms. It is stated that the premises of the Petitioner were searched by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI ) on 27-28th September, 2014 and a panchnama of the seized goods was prepared. The seized goods were handed over to the petitioner on superdari. A copy of the superdaginama has been enclosed with the petition. 3. Inter alia, for the purposes of the present order, what is relevant is that the Petitioner undertook to keep the seized goods handed over to him intact and in the same condition as they are now and produce them whene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er it was not supplied to him. The Court has been shown the original SCN as available in the file of the DRI with Annexure-AA is enclosed. It is titled: Relied upon documents to the SCN No. (51/2015) dated 26.09.2015 . While the main text of the SCN concludes at page 53, and the bottom of the page shows Page 53 of 54 , Annexure-AA itself does not mention page no. 54. Be that as it may, what is evident is that in terms of Annexure AA there are 31 Relied Upon Documents ( RUDs ) to the SCN. However, as pointed out by Mr. Mukesh Anand, learned counsel for the Petitioner, the text of the SCN itself refers to only 19 RUDs. The 19th RUD is mentioned in para 7.1 of the SCN. Thereafter there is no reference to any other RUD. It appears that the Petitioner proceeded on the basis that there were only 19 RUDs referred to in the main text of the SCN. The Petitioner had been writing to the adjudicating authority, i.e., the Principal Commissioner (Customs) for copies of the RUDs. The Petitioner has also been seeking provisional release of the seized goods pending the adjudication as well as a re-examination of the seized goods. 7. By an order dated 29th April 2015 in W.P. (C) No. 4225 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 29th February 2016, took note of the fact that the Petitioner had raised a dispute regarding identity of the goods and demanded re-examination which had been rejected by the order dated 18th August, 2015 by the DRI. The Court was not inclined to modify the conditions for provisional release of the goods since a serious dispute had been raised by the Respondents regarding genuineness of the documents produced by the Petitioner and this was crystallised in the SCN which was pending adjudication. The Court, however, directed the Principal Commissioner (Adjudication) to conclude the adjudication proceedings and to pass an adjudication order not later than four months from today . 10. On 28th April, 2016, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Adjudicating Officer (AO) requesting for the annexures to the SCN to enable him to file a reply. According to the Petitioner, this was the first date of hearing in the adjudicating proceedings that had been fixed by the AO after the order dated 29th February, 2016 passed by this Court. In response to the above letter, the AO wrote to the Petitioner on 12th May, 2016 informing him that the SCN was issued by the DRI and, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set by this Court by order dated 29th April 2016 to complete the adjudication proceedings within a period of four months thereafter was not going to be complied with. It is in these circumstances that the present petition was again filed by the Petitioner again seeking for quashing of the SCN for unconditional release of the goods seized through the panchnama dated 28th September 2014. 14. In response to the notice issued in this petition on 21st July, 2016 Mr. Satish Aggarwala appeared on behalf of the DRI and Mr. Pramod Kumar Rai on behalf of the Customs. Today a counter affidavit by the DRI has been handed over in Court by Mr Aggarwala. It is not in dispute that although the SCN refers to annexure-AA, the body of the SCN itself does not refer to RUDs beyond RUD 19. Further, although Annexure-AA to the SCN refers to 31 RUDs, the AO furnished the Petitioner with only 19 RUDs. It is only today in Court that a complete set of the 31 RUDs has been handed over by Mr Aggarwala to the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 15. In light of the fact that the 31 RUDs have been supplied only today to the Petitioner, the time for completion of the adjudication proceedings has to be exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period of two weeks from today, and in the presence of a representative of the Petitioner and one representative each of the DRI and the Customs, a re-examination will take place of the seized goods which are in the custody of the Petitioner on superdari. A mutually agreed date will be determined in consultation with each of the parties through their respective counsel. The re-examination shall be completed within a period of two weeks from today. A detailed inventory will be drawn up. The cost of engaging additional help for the purposes of preparing the inventory will be borne by the Petitioner. The inventory so drawn up will form part of the adjudication record and can be relied upon by the Petitioner as well as the DRI and the Customs in the adjudication proceedings. 20. It is made clear that the above directions are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the adjudication proceedings. This is not intended to create any equity or rights in favour of any of the parties and will not result in modification of the earlier order of provisional release of the goods in favour of the Petitioner. 21. The writ petition and the application are disposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
