9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion the petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to release all the detained goods and for the return of the seized records. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that since the Collector, Central Excise did not extend the statutory period of six months for issue of show cause notice in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods detained and the documents seized are liable to be released and returned. It was further urged that the act of respondent is only for harassment as the goods which have been detained are duty paid. 4. According to the respondents all the goods seized are the goods liable for excise duty under First Schedule under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period of not exceeding six months. (3) The proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act. (4) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs." Under sub-clause (2) if no notice in respect of the seized goods under sub-section (1) is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods are liable to be returned to the person concerned from whose possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. It cannot be doubted that the statutory period has come to an end, and if not notice as stipulated under section 110(2) was given by the authorities, the goods detained are liable to be returned to the person concerned from whose possession they were seized. In the present case it is not in dispute that the goods were seized by the respondents from the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid facts the goods seized are liable to be returned to the petitioner forthwith. 6. Next, it was urged by the petitioner that the respondents are also liable to return the documents which may have seized along with the aforesaid goods. The contention is that the present show cause notice was for the seizure of the goods and that having failed, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is stated that the petitioner is manufacturer of billets (gullies) of copper falling under T.I. 26A and have contravened the provisions of Rule 52-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as they had in their possession of brass blocks without the cover of any document showing payment of Central Excise Duty or invoices showing legitimate receipt of the goods. Thus respondents have right to investigate on the basis of the documents seized, whether the transaction, as revealed from it, indicates evasion of excise duty or not. The rentention of documents, for this purpose which has been mentioned in the aforesaid show cause notice cannot be said to be either improper or illegal. In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit it has been specifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
