2007 (1) TMI 10 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of dues Alleged that the company who has liability to pay the dues is the owner of the property After verification find that the property was belong to an individual person

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over property ownership leading to attachment for duty, interest, and penalties
- Appeal based on new evidence of property ownership

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai was against the Commissioner's order attaching a factory premises for duty, interest, and penalties due from a company and its Directors. The appellant, Mr. Harishchandra Gupta, claimed individual ownership of the property, but the Commissioner held it belonged to the company. The Tribunal noted the submission of a letter from a bank supporting Mr. Gupta's ownership claim, which was not considered by the Commissioner initially.

2. The Tribunal acknowledged the relevance of the new document and the dispute regarding the ownership of the attached property. It emphasized that the Commissioner's order did not account for this crucial evidence. The Tribunal highlighted that the issue at hand was not the dues to be recovered but the actual ownership of the property in question. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed a fresh consideration of the bank's letter, emphasizing the importance of providing a personal hearing opportunity.

3. The Tribunal, in its decision, allowed the appeal by way of remand, indicating that a new decision based on the additional evidence should be made after considering all relevant documents and providing a fair chance for personal hearing. This comprehensive analysis showcases the importance of proper consideration of evidence in matters of property ownership disputes within the realm of duty, interest, and penalties, ensuring a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.