SHARP MENTHOL INDIA LIMITED Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the Commissioner of Central Excise allowed the extension of the period of issue of show cause notice, required to be issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, by another six months under proviso to Sub -section (2) of Section 110 of the said Act.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case, in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of Menthol Crystal and Essential Oils (Pharmaceutical grade) falling under tariff item No. 30039021 and 33012400, 33012510 etc. of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Central Excise Officers on 18.7.2006 seized 1938 drums of Mentha Piperata oil and other goods from their godown. The appellants vide letter dated 18.8.2006 and 21.8.2006 requested to the Additional Director General of DGCEI to release the said goods as the same was meant for export as per pending order with them. It is seen from the letter dated 19.09.2006 of the Additional Director General addressed to the Commissioner of Central Excise recommended that 907 drums may be released provisionally as its identity was confirmed by the test report of I.I.T. (Department of Chemistry), Delhi. The appellant was advised to approach to the Commissioner of Central Excise for release of the goods as the case is falling within the adjudication power of the Commissioner. A show cause notice dated 10.01.2007 was issued by the Additional Director General proposing for extending the stipulated period of six months by another six months, for issue of the show cause notice under the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 as made applicable to the Central Excise matter vide Notification No. 68/63 -CE dated 04.05.1963 issued under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner of Central Excise by the impugned order dated 16.01.2007 extended the period for issue of the show cause notice by another six months under proviso to Sub -section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) THE learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the goods were meant for export and therefore, the seizure of the goods should be lifted within seven days from the date of seizure. He referred to para 2.42.1 of Foreign Trade Policy 2002 -2009. He submits that in this situation, proviso to Section 110(2) of the said Act cannot be invoked. He further submits that the department failed to show any sufficient cause for extension of the time for release the balance quantity of 1031 drums meant for export. He also submits that the test report of CIMAP and FFDC are in their favour and the test report of IIT, Delhi was not disclosed to them. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manick Chand Paul and Ors. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. para 10. He also relied upon the case of Weston Components Ltd., v. CC, New Delhi reported in 2005 (115) ELT 278 (SC). He submits that the appellant has already incurred huge loss due to illegal seizure of the export goods and therefore, goods may be released unconditionally.