A.K. Goel, J. - (1.) THIS petition seeks a direction for release of raw material seized by the Anti Evasion Branch of the Central Excise, Faridabad on 15.9.2008 and also to quash letter of seizure dated 24.9.2008 alongwith Panchnama. Case of the petitioner is that it was engaged in manufacture of ferrous and non -ferrous ingots (aluminium alloy ingots), for which raw material of aluminium scrap, silicon scrap and copper scrap are required. The petitioner availed CENVAT credit for the inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The inputs received were entered into a register. On physical verification conducted by the representatives of the Department on 15.9.2008, certain records, hard disc and floppy were seized. Closing stock was also checked up. Case of the petitioner was that there were no irregularities and the raw material was duly entered in the books of account.
(2.) THE petitioner made a request for release of the seized goods. The petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 11 lac towards Central Excise Duty, which may be found due without any assessment. Contention raised in the petition is that under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, only the finished goods are excisable and there could be no evasion of duty unless the goods are manufactured and cleared. Condition of executing Bond in form B -11 or giving of cash security for releasing the goods was not justified. Bond B -11 was applicable for release of finished goods only. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, stand taken is that the petitioner had shown low value addition and paid very less amount of duty from the cash account. The imported scrap was of the value of Rs. 70 -80 per kg. while finished goods were of the value of Rs. 120 -130 per kg. They also found that against the declared stock of 453326 kg. aluminium scrap entered in the stock RG -23A Pt -I register, the balance shown was nil. In the table reproduced in para 3 of the written statement, it is mentioned that though there was entry of goods received in register RG -23A, in the register maintained in computer in Excel sheet, the entry of 7.9.2008 and 8.9.2008 was nil. It is, thus, pointed out that under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the goods were liable to confiscation and penalty. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) WE find that the seizure was effected on 15.9.2008 arid neither the goods have been released nor is there any progress in conducing inquiry when allegation is only about record not being complete, which does not require any detailed investigation. It is well settled that power of effecting seizure is coupled with duty. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why for the period of more than one month no further investigation has been made. On being pointedly asked from learned Counsel for the respondents, they have expressed their inability to make any statement when the investigation will be completed beyond saying that the respondents are entitled for a period of six months under the rules. Even though, we do not express any opinion on merits at this stage, the question of prima facie case for confiscation is required to be examined with a view to decide whether stand of the respondent for continuing to detain the goods except if the -petitioner agrees for the terms imposed i.e. furnishing of cash security for 25% of value of goods, is fair.;