N PANDURENGAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the Collector of Central Excise is a party as respondent in both the writ petitions and the Union of India as respondent in Writ Petition No. 7715 of 1991, they have not appeared either in person or through counsel, even though these petitions have been pending in this Court for seven years.

(2.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner who is an assessee under the IT Act, in WP No. 5618 of 1991 is that the 4th respondent, the Asstt. CIT, Investigation Circle-I, Madurai, has without any legitimate cause, gone back on his earlier order by which he had informed the petitioner that approximately 916.020 gms. of gold jewellery belonging to the petitioner N. Pandurangan and seized from the business premises of Senthil Murugan Jewellers, Madurai under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961, on 25th April, 1988, was released to the petitioner Pandurangan with the approval of the CIT, Madurai, that communication to the petitioner informing him about the release is dt. 6th March, 1991. But by a subsequent letter dt. 27th March, 1991, the same officer referred to a notice under s. 105 of the Gold Control Act issued by the Collector of Central Excise dt. 26th September, 1988 and placing reliance to the notice informed the petitioner that the jewellery of 916.02 gms. cannot be released until a clearance is obtained from the erstwhile Gold Control Authorities.

(3.) THE Asstt. CIT had after securing the approval of the CIT, informed the assessee/petitioner that the seized jewellery was released. It is not the case of the Asstt. CIT or the CIT that jewellery is required in relation to any proceeding under the IT Act. THE withholding is only by reason of a notice which was issued under s. 105 of the Gold Control Act in the year 1988. THE petitioner cannot be compelled to wait forever or until such time as the Collector of Central Excise will chose to act. He cannot merely by reason of a notice issued under s. 105 of the Gold Control Act which is no longer on the statute book, deny the custody of the jewellery to its owner even when the authority which issued the notice has chosen to remain ex parte in these proceeding. THE only inference possible is that no proceedings are pending against the petitioner under the Gold Control Act which is also the submission of the counsel for the petitioner.