Delhi High Court
Lokesh Pathak vs Commissioner, Central Excise, ... on 15 February, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 17051 of 2005
LOKESH PATHAK ....Petitioner
Through Mr. Amit Bhardwaj, Advocate.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I.... Respondent.
Through Mr. Mukesh Anand and
Mr. Sailesh Tiwary Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 15.02.2011
The petitioner Lokesh Pathak seeks mandamus for release of
Rs.63,82,000/- which were seized on 2nd November, 2004, during the
search proceedings under the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with
Sections 110 and 121 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The petitioner is Managing Director of Art-N-Glass Pvt. Ltd. As
per the counter affidavit the allegations are that the said company was
indulging in the evasion of central excise duty by way of under valuation
and suppression of their actual production and removal of
manufactured goods clandestinely without payment of appropriate
central excise duty. It is also stated that cash of Rs.66,05,000/- was
recovered from the residence of the petitioner and on enquiry at the
time of search, it was stated that the cash was related to the factory
account and was kept in the house for safety reasons. It is further
alleged that the accounts of two sister concerns M/s Designer Glass
Works and M/s Nangloi Glass & Plywood were also found maintained at
the same premises. It is averted in the counter affidavit that the
statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 14 of the
Central Excise Act, 1944 on 2nd November, 2004 and the petitioner was
not able to explain the source of cash recovered from his residence.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the seizure is justified.
2. The petitioner on the other hand contends the cash recovered
pertains to transaction relating to sale of an immovable property with a
third person Sanjay Singhal. Reliance is placed on purported
documents. These all are disputed questions of fact which have to be
gone into and examined during the course of the adjudication
proceedings under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Various aspects
including statements recorded, books of accounts and other material
available is required to be examined and gone into. Against the
assessment order, M/s Art-N-Glass India Pvt. Ltd. has filed an appeal
before Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. In
the said appeal, the following order dated 1st August, 2007 was passed
on the stay application by the aforesaid Tribunal:
"It is seen that against a tax demand of about
Rs.45 lakhs, there is already seizure of cash
amounting to Rs.64 lakhs. Cash so lying with the
revenue is sufficient for the purpose of
proceedings with the appwal.
2. Stay applications are allowed and further
recovery is stayed till the disposal of the appeal.
Order dictated in the open Court."
3. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not think that at this stage the
prayer of the petitioner can be granted. Petitioner has to await the
adjudication/appellate proceedings.
4. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. No
costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
KKB
