2013 (11) TMI 37 - HC - Customs

Court dismisses petition for cash release due to delays and non-compliance with procedural rules.

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking the release of cash seized by Central Excise Authorities, citing the petitioner's delays, failure to comply ... Cash Seizure - Deferment of release of cash seized by seizure memo - Held that:- unable to appreciate as to why the petitioner did not seek for release of cash in the writ petition filed earlier and as to why he has taken six years' time to make an application for release of cash and has relied upon the provisions which are not attracted in the case - Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut has not rejected the application for release of cash. He has only deferred the application until the adjudication is complete - petitioner had not filed the reply to the show cause notice for last five years, we do not propose to interfere in the matter - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Release of cash seized by Central Excise Authorities.2. Application deferred until adjudication.3. Interpretation of powers under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play.5. Entitlement to reasonable cost for document copies.6. Cross-examination in adjudication proceedings.7. Application for release of cash delayed.8. Non-filing of reply to show cause notice.9. Relevance of Supreme Court judgment in a Customs Act case.10. Commissioner's deferral of cash release application.11. Failure to appear before Adjudicating Authority.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought the release of cash seized by the Central Excise Authorities, which was deferred 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 under the Central Excise Act, 1944, relying on Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The court noted a previous writ petition where the petitioner had successfully requested the return of certain documents. The court emphasized the importance of cross-examination in adjudication proceedings and clarified the rights of parties regarding the examination of witnesses and the provision of document copies at the department's cost.3. The respondents contended that Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, was not applicable for the release of seized goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Central Excise Authorities. The court observed that the application for cash release had not been dismissed but deferred until adjudication.4. The court expressed concern over the delay in filing a reply to a show cause notice issued in 2008 and the petitioner's failure to seek cash release earlier. The court referenced a Supreme Court judgment related to the Customs Act, highlighting the distinction from the Excise Act case under consideration.5. Despite the Commissioner not rejecting the cash release application, the court noted the petitioner's prolonged delay in responding to the show cause notice and declined to interfere in the matter. Additionally, the petitioner's absence during scheduled dates before the Adjudicating Authority was highlighted.6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, considering the petitioner's delayed actions, non-compliance with procedural requirements, and lack of appearance before the Adjudicating Authority as significant factors in the decision.