2015 (12) TMI 1591 - HC - Customs

Court orders release of seized gold ornaments in Writ Petition, citing change in circumstances

The Writ Petition was disposed of with the Court directing the release of the seized gold ornaments to the petitioner within three months from the date of ... Implementation of Order of the CEGAT dated 26-7-1993 - Held that: - the ground on which the application for implementation of the order dated 26-7-1993 was rejected does not survive. Hence, there can be no alternative before this Court than to direct for release of the seized gold ornaments to the petitioner after observing necessary formalities within a period of three months from the date of this order - writ petition disposed off. Issues:Assailing order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Implementation of Order of CEGAT dated 26-7-1993 in Appeal No. G-3/93.Analysis:The Writ Petition was filed to challenge the order dated 19-1-2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rejecting the application seeking implementation of the Order of the CEGAT dated 26-7-1993 in Appeal No. G-3/93. The petitioner sought the release of 34 pieces of gold ornaments based on the CEGAT order, which allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. The Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, filed a reference application with a prayer to refer the matter to the Court under Section 82B(3) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and for stay operation of the order. However, the reference application and stay petition were rejected, leading to the current challenge in the Writ Petition.The petitioner argued for the release of the seized gold ornaments, emphasizing that no stay order was passed by the Court in a related case. On the other hand, the Department contended that the Tribunal, being functus officio after 21 years, lacked jurisdiction to direct implementation of the 1993 order. The Department also highlighted the pendency of a reference application before the Court, suggesting that no order should be passed at the moment. Despite these arguments, the Court noted that the ground for rejecting the application for implementation of the 1993 order no longer existed due to a recent order in another case. Consequently, the Court directed the release of the seized gold ornaments to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order.Therefore, the Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly, with the Court directing the release of the seized gold ornaments to the petitioner within a specified timeframe, considering the developments in related cases and the absence of grounds for denying the implementation of the 1993 order.