2006 (12) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Court dated 7-9-2006 in CWP No. 5969 of 2006 [2007 (209) E.L.T. 15 (P & H)], Annexure P.1. 2. Case of the petitioners is that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are sole proprietorship concerns, belonging to Shri Kulbhushan Goyal, proprietor (who is also petitioner No. 6 in his capacity as Karta of HUF and petitioner No. 7 in his individual capacity), while petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are partnership concerns of which Shri Kulbhushan Goyal was a partner. Petitioner No. 8 is wife of Shri Kulbhushan Goyal. The bank accounts belonging to the petitioners were seized/attached by the Customs Department, which was challenged by them by filing CWP No. 5969 of 2006, which was allowed by this Court. In violation of the said order, a fresh order, Annexure P.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as been summoned as a witness for giving evidence as per Annexures P.5, P.6 and P.7. Show Cause Notice Annexure P.8 has also been issued alleging that goods exported by some of the petitioners were liable to confiscation and amount of draw back claimed and received fraudulently was liable to be recovered under Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 read with Section 76(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The said show cause notice is dated 13-3-2005 and no further order has been shown. In view of the above, we are of the view that the bank account of the petitioners cannot be kept seized for indefinite period. Respondent No.2 who has seized the bank account is directed to pass an appropriate order within one month fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that the amount represented duty drawback received by the petitioners fraudulently for which proceedings were in progress and a reasonable belief was reached that the amounts were liable to be confiscated under Section 110 read with Sections 75, 113 and 121 of the Act and there was difference in situation after the passing of the earlier order which justified the impugned order. 9. Larned Counsel for the respondents further pointed out that petitioner No. 1 purchased goods from petitioner No. 2 and while availing facility of drawback of duty, a mis-declaration that they had not availed Cenvat credit was filed which was against record. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 r....