9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Duty has been determined by the competent authority whereunder and whereby Rs. 53.00 lakhs and odd was payable to the Central Excise Department by the second respondent company herein. The first respondent company herein purported to have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the second respondent herein to undertake commercial production of finished goods on conversion charges apart from supplying raw material and incurring the costs of production within the factory premises of second respondent herein When the first respondent purportedly entered into Memorandum of Understanding, it ought to have verified the tax or other dues Without adverting to the basic question, the learned Judge simply granted injunction restraining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny is liable to pay arrears and if the same are not paid, the department can recover the amount by way of attachment and sale of plant, machinery and excisable goods. That aspect has not at all been considered by the trial court. The entire order of trial court goes to show that it was decided as if it is an appeal against the order of determination of the duty In the counter filed by the appellants, it is specifically stated that the Commissioner at the request of the manufacturer, has permitted them to clear the dues amounting to Rs 1,47 64,497/- (arrears pertaining to the period from December, 2003 to January, 2006) in 36 instalments, at the rate of Rs. 4,15,935/- per month. After paying three instalments promptly, the assessee failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first respondent was paying conversion charges and other manufacturing charges to the second respondent and that the third respondent is paying excise duty to petitioners herein is without basis and material on record Similarly, the finding that the ownership of all the materials like sponge iron lumps, sponge iron finishes, sponge iron briquettes and other residues vest with the first respondent herein and not attachable, is totally de void of merit and it is a perverse finding in view of the proviso to Section 11 of the Act, 1944, which was inserted by Act 23 of 2000 and came into effect from 10- 9 5 The claim of the first respondent company is that it is a lessee of second respondent Even assuming that the first respondent is a lessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
