2008 (4) TMI 551 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application for attachment of factory premises.
2. Ownership of the property in question.
3. Granting interim stay by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around a stay application concerning the attachment of factory premises by the Commissioner towards dues from a company and its directors. The applicant, a legal heir, argues that the property belongs to her late father and not the company. Evidence includes a letter from a bank and a share certificate in the late father's name. The Commissioner's finding, as highlighted by the SDR, contradicts this claim, stating the property belongs to the company. The Tribunal had previously granted interim stay against a similar attachment order.

2. The ownership dispute over the property is crucial in this case. The applicant asserts that the property rightfully belongs to her late father based on documentary evidence. On the other hand, the Commissioner's order and the bank's communication suggest that the property is owned by the company. The Tribunal acknowledges the potential consequences of not granting a stay, which could lead to the auction of the property, making it challenging to reclaim even if the appeal succeeds. The balance of convenience is deemed to favor the applicant, leading to the decision to restrain further action on the property until the appeal is resolved.

3. The Tribunal's decision to grant interim stay in a previous appeal sets a precedent for the current case. The Tribunal had directed the department not to proceed with the attachment order, considering the ownership dispute and the implications of losing the property. By reiterating the stay order in the present case, the Tribunal aims to prevent any irreversible actions until the appeal is heard, scheduled for a specific date. This approach ensures fairness and maintains the status quo pending the final resolution of the appeal.