9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that based on intelligence that an illegal and unregistered factory was engaged in the manufacturing and clandestinely removing pan masala and guthka from a premises located at Koli Farm, Pavan College Road, Kolar, Karnataka resulting in evasion of central excise duty, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (Hqrs.), (DGCEI) conducted searches at various premises in Kolar, Karnataka and Guntur, Andhra Pradesh on 30/05/2017 and during the search, which was conducted at the said unregistered factory in the presence of two independent witnesses, found some machineries at the said premises. The officers also found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court of Karnataka vide order dt. 26/04/2018 directed the officers of the DGCEI to dispose of his representation in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter the appellant submitted affidavit of the original owner of the vehicles and also the documents showing subsequent purchase and an attempt to get transfer of ownership of the vehicles in the name of the appellant. Thereafter the appellant received a letter from the DGCEI to join the investigation and to tender the statement. The appellant's statements were recorded on 01/05/2018 and 02/05/2018. Thereafter personal hearing was granted to the appellant on 01/06/2018. During that hearing, appellant filed the written submissions and the original letter dt. 05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dt. 06/03/2018, the authority had no option except to order for provisional release of the vehicles and hence the impugned order is in contravention of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. It is his further submission that once the original owner herself issues no objection for release of vehicles in the name of the subsequent purchaser, the vehicles should be released to the subsequent purchaser as otherwise it amount to holding vehicles in illegal custody in contraventions of the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The learned counsel also submitted that the vehicles are no way either connected with the alleged evasion of duty or were carrying any goods in contraventions of the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The appellant be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. Further I find that the appellant has produced on record the cash receipts vide which he has made full payment to the owner of the vehicles and has also placed on record the delivery note of the vehicles taking possession of the vehicles and produced application whereby he has applied for transfer of the veh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
