9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hedule to the orders. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that the machineries in question have been purchased from respondent No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. According to the petitioners, the machineries were initially purchased and owned by respondent No. 4 since calendar year 1998 and were used for the purposes of business of respondent No. 4. That the said machineries have been sold as scrap as per invoice appearing at Annexure-C by respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioners. That, for no fault of the petitioners, the said machineries have been detained and seized by respondent No. 3. 3.Mr. Y.N. Ravani appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He has placed reliance on affidavit-in-reply dated 19th October, 2005 file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to render any opinion as to whether the allegations against respondent No. 4 are justified or not. Proceeding on the assumption, that whatever is stated is correct, it would apply only qua respondent No. 4, and for this, in absence of any factual foundation to establish a link between the petitioners and respondent No. 4, or an averment supported by any evidence to the effect that the transaction is not at an arm's length, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer by detention and seizure of the machineries of the petitioners. Though a faint attempt is made by stating that there was connivance between respondent No. 4 and the petitioners, except for bald averment, there is nothing on record to even suggest such a fact. 6.Rule 15 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aph records : "The evaded Credit of Central Excise duty has been demanded from respondent No. 4 only". 8.Once this is the position, neither can Rule 15 of the Rules be invoked in the case of the petitioners nor can the powers under Section 110 of the Customs Act be exercised against the petitioners for alleged violation of Rules by respondent No. 4. 9.Thus, it is apparent that the entire action of the respondent authorities is neither supported by facts and evidence on record nor is it in consonance with any provision of law. The provisions on which reliance has been placed by the respondent authorities, on a plain reading, cannot be applied to the facts of the case as available on record. The entire action of the respondent authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
