2016 (10) TMI 388

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fine - appellant chose the confiscation of goods - in the course of seizure proceedings custody of several coolers taken by the Commissioner of Central Excise - Held that: - It is not disputed that the petitioners did not deposit the redemption fine amount. As a consequence, the goods have been vested with the respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise and the order-in-original having been made on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... both these proceedings, the petitioners complain that their premises i.e. C-44, Vijay Vihar, Phase-I, Rohini, New Delhi and G-22, Vijay Vihar, Phase-I, Rohini, New Delhi are under continued occupation by the Commissioner of Central Excise despite the order of seizure and confiscation of goods having been made. After adjudication, an order-in-original was passed on 30.11.2015 whereby an option was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a consequence, the goods have been vested with the respondent- Commissioner of Central Excise and the order-in-original having been made on 30.11.2015, the respondent should have ensured that the premises i.e. two immovable properties were restored to the petitioners at the earliest time feasible. 4. This Court is of the opinion that the continued occupation of the said two premises is palpabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X