PARMARTH IRON (P.) LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Shri B.C. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Shri Siddharth Shukla and Shri Amit Mahajan appear for the respondents. By the impugned order the petitioner's application for release of cash seized by seizure memo dated 26 -12 -2007 by the Central Excise Authorities has been deferred, until adjudication of the case as per related provisions in the matter.

(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the cash amounting to Rs. 5,90,000/ - (Panchnama dated 10 -7 -2007) and Rs. 17,17,797/ - (Seizure Memo dated 26 -12 -2007) was seized by the Director General of Central Excise (Intelligence), New Delhi. He submits that the impugned order dated 8 -5 -2013 does not take into consideration the powers vested in the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, which are applicable where the seizure were made under the Central Excise Act, 1944, relying on provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) LEARNED counsels appearing for the respondents would submit that the provision of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 has not been made applicable for release of seized goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Central Excise Authorities as under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the notifications have been issued. These notifications, however, had not attracted the provision of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 for release of any goods, documents or things seized under Section 110. He submits that in any case the application for release of cash has not been dismissed. It has only been deferred until the adjudication of the matter.