TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Immediate return of voluntarily deposited amounts and release of detained goods on Form B-11 undertaking under Rule 206</h1> <h3>CENTURY METAL RECYCLING PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> HC declined to rule on validity of the search and seizure while investigation continues but held there was no justification to retain amounts voluntarily ... Seeking to quash the search and seizure conducted by Commissioner - Refund claimed of the amount deposited by the petitioners under threat of arrest - search was without any reason and the petitioners were forced to make the deposit even before the assessment and that continued detention of goods by offering to release them on arbitrary conditions was illegal - HELD THAT:- Since the matter is under investigation, which respondents have undertaken to conclude within one month, we do not consider it necessary to express any opinion at this stage on the validity or otherwise of search and seizure. No justification has been shown for retaining the amount deposited, except saying that since it was voluntarily deposited. In view of this admitted position, the petitioners are entitled to be returned the amount paid. As regards release of goods, the object of seizure admittedly is to ascertain facts and to safeguard the interest of the revenue against any possible evasion of duty. Mere hypothetical existence of power or provision for forfeiture cannot be a ground to require security to be furnished for the value of goods which normally will be very onerous condition. There is nothing to show that any loss will be suffered by the revenue if the goods are released against undertaking of the petitioner to pay duty which may be found due as a result of investigation. It has also not been shown that for release of raw material, conditions of Bond B-11 are applicable. Accordingly, we partly allow this petition and direct the respondent No.2 to forthwith return the amount deposited by the petitioners and to release the goods on furnishing undertaking in terms identical to the terms in Form B-11 prescribed under Rule 206 of the Central Excise Rules without any bank guarantee or cash security. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Issues:Quashing of search and seizure, refund of deposited amount, return of records, coercive action against petitioners, validity of provisional release conditions.Quashing of Search and Seizure:The petition sought to quash the search and seizure conducted by the Commissioner of Central Excise and refund the amount deposited under duress. The petitioner firm manufactured Aluminum and Zinc Alloy Ingots, with the raw material mainly imported and custom duty paid credited to the CENVAT account. The search was conducted at the factory, and the petitioners requested copies of seized documents and provisional release of goods, which was not granted. The respondents alleged evasion of duty based on various grounds, including fake bills, unaccounted sale of Dross, and diversion of finished goods.Refund of Deposited Amount:The petitioners deposited a sum under duress, while the respondents claimed it was voluntary. The court held that unless there is an assessment and demand, the amount cannot be appropriated. The petitioners were entitled to a refund as no justification was provided for retaining the amount, which was deposited voluntarily or under coercion.Validity of Provisional Release Conditions:The court analyzed the reasonableness of conditions for the provisional release of seized goods. It was noted that the seizure aimed to safeguard revenue against duty evasion, but goods cannot be detained indefinitely without a clear prima facie case for confiscation. The court found the conditions for release to be unreasonable, especially without a clear case for forfeiture. The court directed the immediate return of the deposited amount and release of goods without any bank guarantee or cash security.In conclusion, the court partly allowed the petition, directing the return of the deposited amount and release of goods on a specific undertaking without additional security. The petitioners were also permitted to obtain copies of all records at their cost, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
