1988 (12) TMI 115 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the seizure of HDPE woven sacks by the Excise authorities was legal and justified.
2. Whether the petition filed by the business owners is premature due to the ongoing investigation.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners, engaged in stitching and printing HDPE woven sacks, received a notification exempting certain woven sacks from Excise duty if manufactured on flat knitting looms. However, subsequent amendments clarified that sacks manufactured on circular looms were not exempt. The Excise authorities seized HDPE sacks from the petitioners' premises, alleging duty evasion. The petitioners contended that they were not involved in manufacturing on circular looms and demanded release of the goods. The authorities claimed the sacks were woven on circular looms, attracting Excise duty. The court noted the ongoing investigation and deemed the petition premature. It held that the facts and contentions needed clarification post-investigation before a decision could be made on the legality of the seizure. Citing precedent, the court dismissed the petition as premature, emphasizing the need for a complete investigation before adjudication.

2. The respondents argued that HDPE sacks woven on circular looms were subject to Excise duty, contrary to the petitioners' claims. The preventive officers observed HDPE sacks at a factory rented by other businesses for stitching and printing. Statements revealed the involvement of different entities in the manufacturing process. The authorities seized sacks, suspecting duty evasion due to circular loom manufacturing. The court acknowledged the conflicting contentions and the incomplete investigation. It cited a previous case to support the dismissal of the premature petition, emphasizing the need for factual clarity before legal conclusions. The court found the petition premature and lacking grounds for admission, ultimately dismissing it without costs.