2010 (11) TMI 922 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of operation of attachment order under Sec. 142 of the Customs Act against M/s. Sensotherm (I) Pvt. Ltd. in relation to an immovable property.
2. Claim of ownership over the property by legal heirs of late Shri Harish Chandra Gupta.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Stay of operation of attachment order under Sec. 142 of the Customs Act
The legal heirs of late Shri Harish Chandra Gupta sought a stay of the attachment order issued against M/s. Sensotherm (I) Pvt. Ltd. for the recovery of Central Excise duty and penalties. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Commissioner to pass a speaking order regarding the title claimed by the petitioner based on presented documents. Despite multiple appeals and remands, the Commissioner upheld the attachment order. The appellants argued for a stay, emphasizing their ownership claim over the property, while the Respondent submitted that the attachment was lawful under Sec. 142 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted the evidence considered by the Commissioner, including the Deed of Partnership and Deed of Dissolution, indicating a transfer of title to M/s. Sensotherm (I) Pvt. Ltd. from 1993. The Commissioner's finding of lack of evidence for retransfer to legal heirs remained unchallenged. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that without proof of control or possession by the legal heirs, the attachment proceedings could not be stayed.

Issue 2: Claim of ownership over the property by legal heirs of late Shri Harish Chandra Gupta
The legal heirs contended that the property originally belonged to the Maharashtra State Government, leased to Shri Harish Chandra Gupta, who later transferred it to Kandivli Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. They argued that Shri Harish Chandra Gupta never relinquished ownership, as evidenced by documents and Revenue records. The Commissioner, however, relied on the Deed of Partnership and Deed of Dissolution, indicating a transfer of title to M/s. Sensotherm (I) Pvt. Ltd. The legal heirs' claim based on historical documents and a Will was rejected by the Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the legal heirs failed to establish control or possession over the property during the relevant period, leading to the dismissal of their applications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for a stay of the attachment order, affirming the Commissioner's decision based on the lack of evidence supporting the legal heirs' claim of ownership and control over the attached property.