Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th February 2025
M S RADHEY SHYAM RISHI PAL FACTORY .....Petitioner
Through: Mrs. Anjali Jha Manish, Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Mr. Jatin Kumar
Gaur, Mr. Paras Aneja, Advs. (M: 9911063756)
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, Standing Counsel.
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the bank attachment notice dated 27th February, 2024, demanding duty of a sum of Rs. 57,77,496/imposed vide the Order in Original dated 7th December, 2021.
3. The brief background of this petition is that the Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing, importation and production of weighing machines. On 12th January, 2018, a search was conducted at the premises of the Petitioner and certain goods of the Petitioner were seized.
4. Pursuant to the said seizure, summons were issued to the Petitioner for personal appearance. According to the Petitioner, the partners had appeared before the concerned authority from time to time.
5. During the course of the investigation, a writ petition was filed before this Court, being W.P.(C) 4698 of 2018, seeking provisional release of the goods which were seized from the Petitioner. The goods were then provisionally released after the Petitioner had furnished the PD Bond and the Bank Guarantee on 7th August, 2018.
6. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a show cause notice was issued on 22nd December, 2020. On the date when the hearing was fixed, there was some difficulty due to which the Petitioner could not appear as the same was during the second wave of Covid-19 Pandemic.
7. The show cause notice proceedings concluded and Order-in-Original No. 19/2021/SG/Pr.Commr./ICD-Import/TKD (hereinafter ‘OIO’) was passed by Deputy Commissioner (SIIB), ICD, Import, Tughlakabad on 7th December, 2021 and there is some dispute as to whether the Order-in-Original was served upon the Petitioner’s or not.
8. It is the stand of the Department that the same was served on the Counsel of the Petitioner, but this, according to the Petitioner, is contrary to the procedure prescribed.
9. Be that as it may, finally, the same was served on the Petitioner on 2nd July, 2024 and an appeal has now been filed by the Petitioner against the said OIO before CESTAT. However, In the meantime, orders have been issued freezing the bank accounts of the Petitioner vide the impugned bank attachment notice dated 27th February, 2024.
10. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that the appeal having already been filed, the said freezing of the bank accounts deserves to be setaside.
11. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent-Department submits, on instructions, that the Petitioners have filed the appeal and in view thereof, the Department is willing to de-freeze the accounts and orders would be issued accordingly.
12. The following are the details of the bank accounts which have been frozen:-
S. NO.
PARTY NAME BANK NAME ACCOUNT NO.
IFSC BRANC H AMOUNT RS.
1. RADHEY SHYAM RISHI PAL FACTORY JAMMU AND KASHM IR BANK 01030-301- 0000-3348 JAKA-0- SADDAR SADAR BAZAR DELHI 17961.81 2 RADHEY SHYAM RISHI PAL FACTORY PUNJAB NATIO NAL BANK 3061-0021- 000-17528 PUNB030 61 00 KHRM SHOOL ASHOK VIHAR DELHI 2450073.25
3. RADHEY SHY AM JAMMU AND KASHM IR BANK 01030-401- 0000-8079 JAKA-0- SADDAR SADAR BAZAR DELHI 2322897.78
4. DEEPAK KUMAR JAMMU AND KASHM IR BANK 01030-401- 0000-8082 JAKA-0- SADDAR SADAR BAZAR DELHI 12669.76
13. In view of the stand of the Department, it is directed that the directions be issued for de-freezing of these said bank accounts by 14th February, 2025.
14. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the appeal there is an application for condonation of delay, as it is the stand of the Petitioner that the order was not served upon the Petitioner.
15. On this issue, this Court has not made any observations. The prayer for condonation of delay shall be considered by the Appellate forum in accordance with law.
16. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
17. Dasti.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DHARMESH SHARMA JUDGE FEBRUARY 7, 2025/sp/Am