Court dismisses writ petition for seized cash release due to petitioner's delays and non-compliance with procedural rules.

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking the release of seized cash, citing the petitioner's failure to file a reply to the show cause notice for five years and non-appearance before the Adjudicating Authority. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and fair play, ultimately declining to interfere in the matter due to the petitioner's delays and non-compliance with procedural requirements.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for release of seized cash deferred until adjudication.
2. Applicability of Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 in the case.
3. Delay in filing reply to show cause notice.
4. Failure to seek release of cash in earlier writ petition.
5. Non-appearance before the Adjudicating Authority on scheduled dates.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner's application for the release of seized cash was deferred by the Central Excise Authorities pending adjudication. The petitioner argued that the impugned order did not consider the powers vested in the Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, applicable to seizures made under the Central Excise Act, 1944, relying on Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The court noted that the earlier writ petition had allowed the return of non-relied upon documents and hard copies of relied upon documents. The Special Appeal filed against this order clarified that witnesses whose statements were relied upon needed to be made available for cross-examination during adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and fair play.

3. Despite the delay in filing a reply to the show cause notice issued in 2008, the petitioner had not submitted the reply even after five years. The court expressed concerns over the prolonged delay in responding to the notice.

4. The court questioned the petitioner's failure to seek the release of cash in the earlier writ petition and the subsequent delay of six years in making the application, relying on provisions not applicable to the case. The judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the petitioner was deemed irrelevant as it pertained to the Customs Act, not the Excise Act.

5. The respondents argued that Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 was not applicable for releasing seized goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act by the Central Excise Authorities, citing issued notifications under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner had deferred the application for release of cash until the adjudication was completed, noting the petitioner's non-appearance before the Adjudicating Authority on scheduled dates.

6. Considering the petitioner's failure to file the reply to the show cause notice for five years and the non-appearance before the Adjudicating Authority, the court declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the writ petition.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the court's decision and the legal arguments presented by the parties involved.

---