Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Marble Art And Magra Industries Ltd. vs Cce on 7 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(98)ECC585, 2005(192)ELT438(TRI-DEL)
ORDER C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. These appeals are directed against orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise extending the period for issue of show cause notice by six months in respect of seized goods. Both the orders are in similar terms. Order in respect of M/s. Marble Art is reproduced below :
"In exercise of the powers vested in the undersigned under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on being satisfied that additional time is required to complete the investigation, the undersigned, hereby extends the period of issue of show cause notice by six months in respect of seizure of 866.03 sq. Ft. of Marble tiles and 1910.66 Sq. Ft. of Marble tiles and 1910.66 sq. mt. Of marble slabs found in excess in the factory premises of M/s. Marble Art, D-26, Sec-11, Noida effected on 19.08.03."
2. The claim of the appellant is that seized goods are liable to be returned to their owner in case show cause notice is not issued within six months or period for issuance of show cause notice is not extended under a proper proceeding. In the present cases, it is being pointed out hat extension of period has been ordered without issue of a show cause notice and without hearing the parties from whom goods were seized. The appellants submit that, in such a case, the seized goods are required to be returned to their owners. During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that this legal position remained settled by the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of Harbans Lal Vs. CCE&C - 1997 (67) ELT 20 (SC) and Delhi High Court in the case of Sardar Kulwant Singh Vs. CCE&C and Other - 1981 ELT 3 (Del.).
3. The learned DR has submitted that ends of justice would be served if the Commissioner is directed to grant a post decisional hearing. Reliance in this connection is made on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Menka Gandhi.
4. I have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. As is evident from the orders themselves, the goods were seized from the appellant manufactures on 19.8.2003 /20.8.2003 on the ground that they were not properly accounted for. Section 110(2) provides as under in Relation to seized goods :
"(2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods hall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized :
Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding six month".
5. The requirement under the above provision was considered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and it was held that the extension of the period of six months in terms of the proviso could be carried out only after issue of show cause notice to the parties and after hearing them. It was also ruled that, in the event of failure to observe these requirement, the seized goods should be returned to the parties. The Tribunal has also passed many orders following these judgements. In the circumstances, the appellant's claim is required to be allowed. In the result, Revenue is directed to return the seizure goods to the appellant forthwith.