9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n up for final hearing and disposal today. 3. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner primarily challenges the Order-in-Original No. CCE-III/TRC/01/ANI/ELASTIC/COMMR/2005-06 dated 22nd September, 2005 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise-III, respondent No.2 herein. 4. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the manufacturing of Elastic Tapes of various kinds. The petitioner purchased manufacturing unit No.2005/A G.I.D.C., Chhatral held by the erstwhile unit M/s. Urmi Enterprise in an auction held by the Gujarat State Financial Corporation (GSFC) in July, 1999. 5. After a period of about five years, from the date of the purchase of the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Central Excise, passed the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner and directing the Superintendent of Central Excise to recover the amount of Rs.35,23,990.72 by way of attachment of plant and machinery, excisable goods, materials, preparations, vessels, utensils etc. which originally belonged to M/s. Urmi Enterprise and which are now in custody of M/s. Ani Elastics Industries. It is this Order-in-Original which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 8. On 27th October, 2005, this Court had passed the following order : "Mr. Malkan appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities states that Notice has been served only on 24.10.2005 and hence, he prays for time to obtain instructions and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Act cannot be made effective retrospectively for recovery of duty prior to 1999. It was submitted that the impugned action of the respondents in seeking to recover dues of the year 1998 of the erstwhile unit by resorting to the amended provisions of the Act which had been brought on the statute book in 2004 was barred by the law of limitation as under the provisions of the Act it is not permissible for the respondents to recover duty after the lapse of a period of five years. It was further submitted that the petitioner was put in possession of the assets of the erstwhile unit w.e.f. 30th August, 1999 and, therefore, the respondents could not recover duty beyond a period of five years particularly when the liability of the excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate orders in the matter. 13. As can be seen from the impugned order dated 22nd September, 2005, the Commissioner of Central Excise has held that recovery proceedings can be initiated under the amended Section 11 of the Act even though dues may have arisen earlier and that such action does not amount to giving retrospective effect to the amendment. It has also been held that Section 11 of the Act, under which the present proceedings are taken, does not prescribe any time limit for taking action thereunder. 14. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has purchased the manufacturing unit belonging to erstwhile M/s. Urmi Enterprise in an auction held by the respondent No.5 in the year 1999. The impugned order bears out the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
