9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayer is for return of the records of the petitioners. Prayer has also been made for not taking any coercive action of arrest or detention against the petitioners and his employees. 2. Case of the petitioner-firm is that it manufactured Aluminum and Zinc Alloy Ingots falling under Chapter Heading Nos.76 and 79 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The raw material is mainly imported. The custom duty paid is credited to the CENVAT account under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and credit is availed against liability to pay excise duty on the finished product. On 28.5.2008, search was conducted at the factory of the petitioner-firm which was followed by further search on 6.6.2008 and other dates. 3. The petitioners made request to provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already with the petitioners. The respondents advised the petitioners to furnish R-11 bond for value of seized goods with security of 25% of the face value by way of Fixed Deposit or bank guarantee. As regards the return of money, stand of the respondents is that the petitioners made the deposit voluntarily against the duty which may arise during the course of assessment. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that search was without any reason and the petitioners were forced to make the deposit even before the assessment and that continued detention of goods by offering to release them on arbitrary conditions was illegal. It is submitted that re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y different under the scheme of the Act, which has been noticed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.S. Seth v. R.N. Sen AIR 1967 S.C. 1298. 11. The questions for consideration are whether the search and seizure was called for, whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of the amount deposited and whether the conditions for provisional release of seized goods are valid. 12. Since the matter is under investigation, which respondents have undertaken to conclude within one month, we do not consider it necessary to express any opinion at this stage on the validity or otherwise of search and seizure. 13. As far as the amount deposited by the petitioners is concerned, case of the petitioners is that the same was deposited und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entry of dross, the petitioner has pointed out that as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Alluminium (supra) 'dross' was not excisable item. According to the department, the same was excisable w.e.f 1.3.2005. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'dross' was not result of manufacture. Prima facie, it cannot be held that case of the petitioner was not arguable or that prima facie the record in respect of 'dross' was not kept with a view to evade duty. Similarly, the other basis for inference of evasion of duty is that the petitioner has shown low value addition to the cost of raw material while valuing the final product. This inference may be a ground to investigate the matter but not a ground to confiscate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
