TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (1) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... seized on 28-12-1985 in C. No. VIII/10/21/86, Cus. Adj. dated 13-6-1986 from the petitioner's premises bearing Door No. 9,14th Avenue, Harrington Road, Madras-31. 2. Brief facts are the following :- On the basis of intelligence gathered, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, alongwith the Officers of the Central Excise, Madras, on 28-12-1985, searched among others the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edroom of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the third respondent informed the search party that the 4th respondent alone can explain the items seized from that bedroom. It appears that the 4th respondent has given a statement that the said sum of Rs. 54,600/- belonged to his wife, namely, the petitioner herein. However, he has not given a clear statement about this, and further, the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entitled to the return of the amount in the light of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act. 4. Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, submitted that the amount in question included the total amount of Rs. 6,50,950 /- and, all the amounts having been recovered from the premises belonging to the third respondent, a show cause notice was issued both to respondents 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r affidavit, I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the statement of the fourth respondent was not unequivocal. Added to that, the petitioner has not established that she has made any claim on coming to know of the seizure, to the effect that the amount in question belonged to her. In these circumstances, and in view of the pendency of the adjudication proceedings....