1964 (3) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he placed an order for 50 tins of groundnut oil with a mill. This oil was transported to his premises by a cartman. When the goods arrived at the shop, they were checked by the Inspector of Central Excise and the gate pass for the consignment was demanded. The gate pass was not forthcoming. Accordingly, the Inspector seized the goods and obtained a statement from the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 300 for release of the tins. The petitioner remitted the amount to the Sub-treasury on the following day. On being shown the money order receipt, the department released the tins. About a week later, the petitioner was asked to execute a security bond and he complied with the direction. Subsequently, a show cause n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act, 1944, could be proceeded with. On the request of the petitioner to release the goods, he was asked to deposit a sum to cover "the approximate duty and any other sums due to the Govt". It is stated that the petitioner also gave an oral assurance that he could execute a bond in form B-11, which is the usual form to be executed in such cases under Rule 206 of the Central Excise Rules. The bond was in fact executed by the petitioner on 21-12-1959. After the issue of show cause notice and considering the reply thereto, the respondent decided to enforce the bond, as the goods were not produced in conformity with the conditions stipulated in the bond. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that the bond is valid and enforceable and the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Excise, parted with the goods without such a bond being executed. It is true that a bond was executed apparently to secure possession of the goods in the event of confiscation being ordered. In lieu of confiscation however department seems to have proceeded on the basis that a sum of Rs. 300 would be the equivalent value of the goods. Taking into consideration the fact that a sum of Rs. 300 had been deposited and the goods had been released and the bond was intended only for the purpose of securing possession of goods, in the event of confiscation being ordered, I see no justification for the department demanding the deposit of the sum of money even before any order of confiscation has been made. If the bond can be enforced, it is availab....