Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2010 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 758 - HC - Central ExciseWhether in the present case, the respondent can avail the benefit of Section 38A for passing order under Rule 173Q(2) for confiscation of land and can take directly advantage of Rule 211, which now stood omitted - From the Rule 28, it is clear that the legislature intended to confiscate only ‘goods’ which has distinct from immovable property like land, building, plant, machinery, etc - Held that the competent authority of Excise & Customs Department, including the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara-II had no jurisdiction to confiscate the land under Rule 173Q(2), the said Rule having omitted and substituted by Rule 28, by the time the order dated 25-2-2006 was passed - The order being without jurisdiction is nullity in the eye of law and thereby the authorities cannot derive advantage of the order dated 25-2-2006. Whether the respondent Central Government has the first charge or priority over the secured charge of the secured creditor-bank - There is nothing on record to suggest that under the Central Excise Act or the Rules framed thereunder priority of charge over the secured debt has been created - No such law has been brought on record to suggest that the Central Government has any first charge or priority over the secured or unsecured debt - Held that the Excise & Customs Department of the Central Government cannot claim any priority over the secured debt of a secured creditor-Kotak Mahindra Bank as created under Section 14 of the Securitization Act.
|