PALSANA FIBERS PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With consent of the learned Advocates, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) THIS petition challenges orders dated 2nd June, 2005 (Annexure -A) and 5th August, 2005 (Annexure -B) whereunder detention order and seizure order respectively have been made by respondent No. 3 qua the machineries specified in the schedule to the orders. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that the machineries in question have been purchased from respondent No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. According to the petitioners, the machineries were initially purchased and owned by respondent No. 4 since calendar year 1998 and were used for the purposes of business of respondent No. 4. That the said machineries have been sold as scrap as per invoice appearing at Annexure -C by respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioners. That, for no fault of the petitioners, the said machineries have been detained and seized by respondent No. 3.

(3.) AS the averments made in Paragraph No. 3 of the affidavit -in -reply did not specify as to who has violated the Rules, a specific query was put to the learned Counsel for the respondent authorities and it was fairly accepted that the violation is by respondent No. 4. During the course of the submissions it was also contended that the value placed on the machineries for the purposes of transaction between respondent No. 4 and the petitioners was also not acceptable to the respondent authorities as stated in Paragraph No. 4.9 of the affidavit -in -reply. Though various averments regarding fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts with an intent to evade the full reversal of credit in -contravention of the provisions have been made, there is nothing on record to establish, much less point out even prima facie, that any such intention or action can be ascribed to the petitioners.