Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
A.G. Steels vs Dy. Commissioner, C. Ex. Divn. on 1 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001 (128) ELT 53 All
Bench: M Katju, O Bhatt


ORDER

1. Heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia for the petitioner and Shri G.R. Gupta for the respondents.

2. Petitioner’s goods were seized by Central Excise Department and the petitioner applied for release of the same on furnishing security under Rule 206(3) of the Central Excise Rules. Although the applications for release was moved as far back as on 7-8-2000 and 8-8-2000, it is deeply regrettable that as yet those applications have not been disposed of. In our opinion, when an application for release of the goods was moved, it should have been either allowed or rejected or disposed of in some other manner within a week or so, but keeping the said applications undisposed gives rise to all kinds of apprehensions in the public.

3. On the facts of the case we dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to release the aforesaid goods of the petitioner forthwith on its furnishing security to the satisfaction of the respondent No. 1.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.184 seconds.