TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owards demand of duty and applicable interest. Even before the Hon'ble High Court, they have pleaded that they required the seized cash to be provisionally released to discharge duty liability with interest in this case so that they can approach again to the Settlement Commission for settling the case. Thus, in fact, release of the amount for payment of duty for settling the case would only safeguard the interest of Revenue. Appellant is eligible for provisional release of the cash seized on similar terms already considered by the Revenue while releasing the seized goods - Appeal disposed of. - Excise Appeal No. E/55861/2014-EX(DB) - Final Order No. A/53204/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 7-10-2015 - Sulekha Beevi C S, Member (J) And B. Ravicha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y liability as demanded in show cause notice and sought direction to use the seized currency towards such admitted liability. The Settlement Commission while expressing interest in settling the case advised the applicant to approach jurisdictional Commissioner for release of seized amount. Consequently, the application was rejected by the Settlement Commission for non-compliance with the conditions laid down in the above Section as they could not make payment of admitted liability along with interest for settlement of the case. 3. Against the order of Settlement Commission, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court at New Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court vide their order dated 13.08.2014 disposed of the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % of security or surety by the officer who is normally competent to adjudicate the case. Hence, the ld. Counsel for the appellant strongly contested the findings of the original authority that there is no provision under Central Excise Act, 1944 for provisionally releasing the currency seized as sale proceeds of non-duty paid goods. 5. Ld. Authorized Representative, on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the original authority and stated that the provisions of Section 110 A of the Customs Act, have not been made applicable to central excise and as such, the Commissioner is right in refusing the provisional release of the currency. 6. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. 7. The point for consideration is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be accepted, the seizure of currency in the present case itself will become untenable as there is no other provision under Central Excise Act, 1944 for seizing currency. The definition in the Act confines to 'excisable goods'. Hence, it is clear that the seizure of currency is made by the officer adopting the definition in the Customs Act and the said provision treats the currency as goods which can be seized. Here, we notice that on 16.08.2011, the Dy. Commissioner (AE) ordered the provisional release of seized goods other than currency on submitting B-11 Bond for ₹ 98,91,350/- and bank guarantee of ₹ 24,72,838/-. No legal authority has been quoted in the communication. The Department does not have a case that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscation such fine as the officer thinks fit. As such, even after adjudication absolute confiscation is not available in Central Excise. 10. The second reason mentioned by the ld. Commissioner for refusing the provisional release of the seized currency is that it may jeopardize the interest of the Revenue. We have already noted that the seized goods valued at almost ₹ 1 Crore have been provisionally released by the Revenue on 16.08,2011 on execution of Bond for equal amount with 25% bank guarantee. We find no legal basis for a different treatment for seized currency as sale proceeds. Regarding safeguarding the interest of the Revenue, we find that the provisional release of the currency is sought by the appellant only to discha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
