2015 (1) TMI 574 - HC - Customs

Court denies settlement application under Central Excise Act; petitioner must comply with statutory conditions for seized cash release.

PRAMOD AUTO PARTS PVT. LTD. Versus CUS. & C. EX. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

The court rejected the petitioner's application for settlement under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to non-compliance with statutory ... Application for settlement under Section 32E - Held that:- Settlement Commission was open to the idea of accepting the application for settlement provided the petitioner deposits the admitted amount of duty and interest and for which purpose it was suggested that the petitioner could approach the jurisdictional commissioner for release of the said amount against any surety and bank guarantee. - petitioner may file an application under the said provisions for provisional release of the seized amount and the concerned authority shall pass an appropriate order thereon in accordance with law. If such an application is made by the petitioner within a week from today the same shall be disposed of by the concerned authority within two weeks thereafter. - Petition disposed of. Issues:1. Application for settlement under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Rejection of the application due to non-compliance with conditions.3. Provisional release of seized cash amount under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. The writ petition challenged the order of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission regarding the application for settlement under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner sought to adjust the admitted duty and interest against the seized amount available with the Central Excise Department. The Settlement Commission considered the application but rejected it due to non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Section 32E of the Act.2. The Settlement Commission, in its order, observed that the seized amounts were sales proceeds of clandestinely cleared excisable goods, making them unavailable for settlement. While rejecting the application, the petitioner was granted permission to file a fresh application upon depositing the admitted duty liability along with interest as applicable.3. The petitioner's counsel requested provisional release of the seized cash amount under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, coupled with Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court directed the petitioner to file an application for provisional release, ensuring that the concerned authority would decide on the matter within two weeks of submission. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case or the petitioner's eligibility to approach the Settlement Commission for settlement under Section 32E, leaving such determinations to the Settlement Commission.This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with statutory provisions for settlement applications and the possibility of seeking provisional release of seized amounts under relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the role of the concerned authorities in making such determinations within the framework of the law.