TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ghing 466 grams, valued at Rs. 11,93,892/-, would be disposed of, upon expiry of 15 days from the date of issuance of the said notice, unless a stay is obtained by him on the operation of the order-in-original or the order in appeal. The consequential relief that the petitioner seeks is that the seized goods i.e., gold bars be released to him as per Mahazar dated 23.12.2015. 2. What is curious is that there is infact, concededly, no adjudication order passed by the respondents herein. Therefore, the reference in the impugned communication dated 10.11.2016 that the seized goods would be released unless a stay is obtained of the order in original or of the order-in-appeal is completely contrary to the records obtaining in the case; a circums....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same order, the Court made the following observation: "7.In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that liberty may be given to the petitioner to file appropriate application under section 110 A of the Income Tax Act and the respondents may consider the same in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioner, to file an application before the respondent under section 110-A of the Customs Act along with the copy of this order and the respondents are at liberty to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law." 5. The petitioner claims that the certified copy of the said order, i.e., order dated 03.02.2016, was made available only on 25.02.2016 and therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x months, as is the requirement under Section 124 (a) of the Act, the seized goods, i.e., the gold bars are required to be released unconditionally to the petitioner under provisions of Section 110 (2) of the Act. 9. Furthermore, it is argued that the stand taken by the respondents, that the petitioner had waived his right to the issuance of show cause notice is obviously incorrect, as the respondents seek to rely on a letter dated 23.12.2015, which is the date when the petitioner was intercepted at the Airport and the goods in issue were seized. In this connection, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the respondents have fabricated the contents of the aforementioned letter by having them typed on a paper, on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in which blank spaces have been filled up without due application of mind. 12.2. Secondly, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents could not have reached the stage of "absolute confiscation" of the goods in issue, till they passed an adjudication order. 12.3. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated categorically before me, as indicated right at the outset, that there has been no adjudication in this matter. The issue, therefore, is that, should the subject goods i.e., the gold bars, be released unconditionally to the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the letter appended to the respondents' counter affidavit, which is dated 23.12.2015, was not been tendered by ....