TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Seizure of Assets Upheld in Duty Evasion Case: Court Rules in Favor of Authorities</h1> The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad upheld the legality of the seizure of plant and machinery under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and ... Seizure Issues: The legality of the seizure of plant and machinery u/s 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.Summary:The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the case before it, addressed the question of the legality of the seizure of plant and machinery directed by an order dated 13-5-1996. The facts revealed that a vehicle carrying cigarettes without duty payment was intercepted, leading to the seizure of the vehicle and cigarettes. Subsequently, a raid uncovered alleged clandestine production and removal of cigarettes by the petitioner-company. The Department claimed that the petitioner had manufactured and cleared a significant quantity of cigarettes, amounting to approximately Rs. 15 crores in duty.The petitioner contended that plant and machinery, not involved in duty evasion, should not be subject to seizure. It was argued that confiscation proceedings had already commenced for the seized vehicle and cigarettes, and plant and machinery could only be confiscated after adjudication, not seized prior to it.The Court noted that the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 applied to confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. Rule 209 of the Act outlined events warranting confiscation, including cases where duty exceeded Rs. 1 lakh, allowing for the confiscation of land, building, plant, and machinery. The Customs Act, 1962 empowered seizure of goods liable for confiscation. The respondent justified the seizure of plant and machinery as they were also liable for confiscation in the proceedings.Citing precedents, the Court found that previous decisions did not preclude the authority from seizing plant and machinery before adjudication, especially when considering the relevant provisions of Rule 209 and Section 110 of the Customs Act. The Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the respondent, without imposing costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
