Pramod Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. vs Cus. and C. Ex. Settlement Commission

The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P. (C) 5067/2014

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1-7-2014 passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioner has made an application for settlement under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The application was not proceeded further on account of the fact that the petitioner has not cleared the amount of admitted duty and interest. The admitted duty is to the extent of Rs. 70,57,806/- and the interest component is to be computed thereon as per law by the concerned department. The petitioner states that it is willing to deposit admitted duty and interest but the same may be adjusted against the seized amount of Rs. 1,49,54,280/- which is available with the Central Excise Department. The Settlement Commission, on an application seeking adjustment, passed the impugned order. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-

"8.2 The Bench responded by saying that while the Bench was willing to have the matter settled, it could only do so within the confines of law. The Bench suggested that the applicant may approach the jurisdictional Commissioner for release of the seized amount against any surety and bank guarantee. In case the Revenue accedes to the applicant''s request enabling the applicant to pay the admitted duty liability alongwith interest the issue of admissibility of applicant''s application will be overcome and the settlement case can be proceeded accordingly.

The Bench has carefully considered the records of the case and submissions made by the applicant. The Bench observes that the SCN C. No. IV (Hqrs. Prev.)/15/11/2011/3244 dated 29-11-2011 specifically charges that the seized amounts of Rs. 14,11,380/- and Rs. 1,35,42,900/- are sales proceeds of clandestinely cleared excisable good and proposes confiscation of the aforesaid amounts. This being the charge, it is clear that the seized amount is not available to the applicant for any settlement.

The Bench accordingly rejects the applicant filed by M/s. Pramod Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. and Others on the ground of non-compliance with the conditions laid down in Section 32E of the Act. Permission is however granted to the applicant to a file fresh application after deposit of his admitted duty liability along with interest as applicable. In view of rejection of the application of the main applicant, the application filed by the co-applicant is not maintainable, hence rejected."

It is evident from paragraph 8.2 that the Settlement Commission was open to the idea of accepting the application for settlement provided the petitioner deposits the admitted amount of duty and interest and for which purpose it was suggested that the petitioner could approach the jurisdictional commissioner for release of the said amount against any surety and bank guarantee.

While rejecting the said application, permission was, however, granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application after deposit of the admitted duty liability along with interest as applicable.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the adjudication with regard to the seized cash amount of Rs. 1,49,54,280/- is also pending. She, however, submits that she is not asking for a final release of the said amount but only for a provisional release of the same under the provisions of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On going through Section 110A of the Customs Act it is evident that a provisional release of any goods (which includes currency and cash) may be sought pending the order of the adjudicating authority.

We are disposing of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner may file an application under the said provisions for provisional release of the seized amount and the concerned authority shall pass an appropriate order thereon in accordance with law. If such an application is made by the petitioner within a week from today the same shall be disposed of by the concerned authority within two weeks thereafter.

We are making it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. We also make it clear that we have not expressed any view on the eligibility of the petitioner to approach the Settlement Commission seeking settlement under the provisions of Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which shall be determined by the Settlement Commission. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.