9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elivery or clearance from the factory would be made only after inspection by the Officers of the 3rd respondent and not before. 3. On 8-9-1989, the Officers of the 1st and 2nd respondents made an inspection of the petitioner's factory premises and they seized goods which were in the factory apparently on the ground that it has not been entered in R.G. 1 register. The petitioner herein filed W.P. 12612 of 1989 in this Court for quashing the proceedings culminating in the preparation of the mahazar dated 8-9-1989 relating to the seizure and in that writ petition, the following order was made:- "Heard the counsel on both sides for some time. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on instructions states that if the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase on payment of duty and execution of a bond. It is thereafter the impugned orders dated 24-10-1989 had been issued by the Deputy Collector (Prevention) under which the petitioner was informed as follows:- "Collector has ordered provisional release of the seized goods subject to execution of prescribed B. 11 Bond for the full value of the goods seized with 25% cash security of the amount of the bond. Further the goods are dutiable and appropriate duty has to be paid at the time of clearance." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when W.P. No. 12612 of 1989 came up for hearing, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on instructions had stated that if the petitioner approaches the 1st respondent with approp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no discretion left with the Authority concerned to dispense with the requirements of Rule 206. He would submit that the furnishing of security besides execution of a bond in the prescribed form is in the discretion of the Collector, because the Rule says, "such security as the Collector may require". Therefore, as a right coupled with duty, the Collector has to exercise his mind and sec whether the security need to be insisted upon or not. 6. Against these submissions, Mr. N. Jothi, learned counsel for the contesting respondents would state that the petitioner was attempting to avoid payment of excise duty and the goods were rightly seized and the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, viz. W.P. 12612 of 1989 did not dispense wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner is also prepared to execute a bond in form B. 11 suitably amended by deleting the clause relating to the production of goods in question, whenever called upon by the Excise Department. So far as the furnishing of cash security is concerned, the petitioner states that it being not the owner of the goods manufactured, it being only a job worker earning a very little margin of profit on the job done by it, should not be mulcted with a liability to pay cash security amounting to 25% of the value of the bond, viz., the value of the goods. Such a direction would be harsh and inequitable, is the contention of the petitioner. 10. There is considerable force in the submission. When it is not in dispute that the petitioner is only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
