Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Inox Air Products Ltd. Versus C.C.E. Ghaziabad

2015 (10) TMI 2346 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Claim of ownership of confiscated goods - appellant is claiming to be the owner of plant and machinery confiscated in the impugned order on the basis of the litigation between RIL and the appellant which was decided in arbitration on 14.03.2012, consequent to the arbitration proceedings, the appellant claims to be owner of the plant and machinery - Held that:- The respondent are claiming that said plant and machinery has been confiscated and there ownership rest with Government of India. Althoug .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oreover, 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-EX(DB) - Dated:- 30-7-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Somnath Shukla & Shri Alok Yadav, Advocate : For the Petitioner Shri Pramod Kumar, DR : For the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: Appellants namely M/s. Inox Air Products are in appeal against the impugned order gist of which is reproduced here as under: 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Rathi Ispat Ltd. (RIL) was issued a show cause notice dated 21.03.2000 for evasion o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ered 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

RIL. Thereafter, the appellant issued public notice on 07.11.2007 declaring its ownership over the plant and machinery. On 14.03.2012, the arbitration proceedings were finalized and it was held that appellant is entitled to remove plant and machinery leased out to M/s. RIL installed in factory thereon. On 30.09.2011, the appellant sought a meeting with the respondent and seek permission for removal of plant and machinery and also sent representation dated 18.11.2011 contending with the said pla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no. 630/2012 before the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad seeking release of plant and machinery. 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 C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e this Tribunal as an aggrieved person. To support this contention he relied on the decision of Northern Plastic Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd.-1997 (91) ELT 502 (SC) and in the case of Lubrizol India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority-2005 (187) ELT 402 (Tri-Del). He also submitted that as there is no dispute to the facts that the title of plant and machinery confiscated by the department pursuant to the impugned order from the premises of M/s. RIL in fact belong to the appellant. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned by the appellant, clearly establish fact that the appellant though was not a party to the original proceedings of impugned order is clearly an aggrieved person since proprietary right qua plant and machinery has been affected by the impugned order. He further submits that without prejudice, this Tribunal order has jurisdiction to revisit 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4 (8) SCC 724 ix. Raja Mechanical Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Delhi-2012 (279) ELT 481 (SC) x. Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI-2013 (293) ELT 326 (Raj) xi. CIT Bombay Vs. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co.-AIR 1958 SC 868 xii. Rani Choudhary Vs. Lt. Col Suraj Jit Choudhary-AIR 1982 SC 1397 xiii. CIT Vs. Eurasia Publishing House (P) Ltd.-1998 232 ITR 381 (Del) 4. He further submits that plant and machinery belonging to the appellant cannot be confiscated but merely it lies in the possession of the defaulter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion. He further submits that post 2001 Rule 173Q of the Rules were amended, therefore, respondent no longer has power to confiscate the plant and machinery in the said Rule as per the decision of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. District Magistrate-2011 (267) ELT 614 (Guj), in the case of Harish Lamba Vs. CCE Mumbai-2008 (227) ELT 286 (Tri-Mumbai), and in the case of Choice Ceramic Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE-2010 (258) ELT 283 (Tri-Ahmd). He further submits that impugned order is violation of principle .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 never sought to participate in the proceedings before the lower authorities. Therefore appeal is to be dismissed. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 7. In this case the appellant has challenged only part of the o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

achinery confiscated in the impugned order on the basis of the litigation between RIL and the appellant which was decided in arbitration on 14.03.2012, consequent to the arbitration proceedings, the appellant claims to be owner of the plant and machinery. The respondent are also claiming that said plant and machinery has been confiscated and there ownership rest with Government of India. Although this Tribunal has powers to entertain the appeals against the order passed by Commissioner of Centra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version