TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (A) under Central Excise Act but this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the goods. Moreover, in the impugned order only plant and machinery owned by M/s. RIL has been confiscated. If appellant is claiming to be the owner of said plant and machinery it is a dispute of civil in nature and this Tribunal is not the proper forum to seek remedy for that. Moreover, it is the claim of the appellant in their written submission that they have approached to the respondent on 30.09.2011 first time to seek the permission of removal of its plant and machinery it is also a claim of the appellant that they were not knowing that any departmental proceedings are pending against RIL by issuance of the show cause notice dated 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of the provision of Section 35F of Central Excise Act 1944. The appellant have also challenged the impugned order on the premise that the appellant had entered with M/s. RIL in two lease agreement dated 17.12.2003 and 16.05.2003 for maintenance and operation of plant and equipments at the site of M/s. RIL, as dispute arose between M/s. RIL and appellant, the appellant suspended the maintenance activity on 22.08.2006. Thereafter, M/s. RIL on 29.08.2006 requested the appellant to remove plant and machinery installed therein and dispute between M/s. RIL and appellant continued. Therefore, the appellant filed a suit before Hon ble High Court of Delhi which was dismissed on 29.09.2006 on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nery. At that time, the appellant came to know that the show cause notice was issued to M/s. RIL have been adjudicated in 2007 and copy of the impugned order was served on the appellant on 29.05.2012. Thereafter, the Hon ble High Court vide order dated 05.04.2013 dismissed the writ petition relegating the petitioner to file the appeal against the order-in-original dated 29.03.2007 passed by Central Excise Commissioner before this Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they have filed this appeal as per the direction of the Honble High Court of Allahabad and are aggrieved person from the impugned order. It is also submitted that as per section 35 B of the Central Excise Act qua the appellant is a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evisit the impugned order in it affects the right of the appellant being aggrieved third party. To support this contention he relied on the following decisions: i. State of Madras Vs. Maurai Mills Co. Ltd.-AIR 1967 SC 681 ii. Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala-2001 (129) ELT 11 (SC) iii. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. CCE-2002 (146) ELT 37 (SC) iv. Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Vijai International Udyog-AIR 1985 SC 109 v. CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement Co. Ltd.-2009 (236) ELT 480 (Tri) vi. CCE Vs. Nav Bharat Steel Re-rolling-2012 (285) ELT 529 (Tri) vii. Smt S. Kalawati Vs. DUrga Prasad Anr.-AIR 1975 SC 1272 viii. Chandi Prasad and Ors Vs. Jagdish Prasad and Ors.-2004 (8) SCC 724 ix. Raja Mechanical Co. (P) Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and machinery belongs to the appellant and they have been confiscated without even been given notice or an opportunity to being heard to the appellants. Therefore, impugned order qua confiscation of the impugned goods be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ld. AR oppose the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that the appellant is not aggrieved party from the impugned order and he was neither part of show cause notice nor participated in the proceedings before the lower authorities. Therefore, he has no locus standi to file the appeal before this Tribunal. He also submits that appeal of M/s. RIL has already been dismissed by this Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order has merged with the order of this Tribunal. Moreover, appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of said plant and machinery it is a dispute of civil in nature and this Tribunal is not the proper forum to seek remedy for that. Moreover, it is the claim of the appellant in their written submission that they have approached to the respondent on 30.09.2011 first time to seek the permission of removal of its plant and machinery it is also a claim of the appellant that they were not knowing that any departmental proceedings are pending against RIL by issuance of the show cause notice dated 20.03.2000 which was adjudicated vide order dated 20.03.2007. When the proceedings of the respondent against M/s. RIL were not known to the appellant, question arises how the appellant came to know about the confiscation of the plant and machinery. Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
