2013 (10) TMI 1139 - AT - Central Excise

Application for Relief from Detention/attachment of Stock of sugar and molasses - Held that - The Department has initiated action against the possessor/lessor of the said factory premises there was no reason to accept the application field by the present applicant as the applicant had never been before this Tribunal as an appellant and it is immaterial that they might be an affected party by the outcome of the Appeal - Prima facie, the facts were perhaps not brought to the notice of Hon ble High Court and the Hon ble High Court under the impression that the appeal of the petitioner has been pending before this Tribunal, directed to pursue the alternate remedy - the applicant being not a party to the Appeals before this Tribunal, do not have any locus standi in approaching this Tribunal for relief against recovery proceeding by the Department there was no substance in their prayer seeking modification of the order of this Tribunal - the Miscellaneous application is dismissed Decided against Assessee.

Issues:
1. Relief from detention/attachment of stock of sugar and molasses.
2. Modification of the order passed by the Tribunal in stay petition.
3. Locus standi of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal for relief against recovery proceedings by the Department.

Issue 1: Relief from detention/attachment of stock of sugar and molasses:
The appellant, M/s. Hanuman Sugar Industries Ltd., sought relief from the detention/attachment of stock of sugar and molasses valued at Rs.1.10 crores. The detention was carried out by the Department through a Detention memo dated 7th March, 2013. The applicant also requested an injunction restraining the Revenue from pursuing recovery against their Directors and office bearers following an order dated 6/5/2008. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had never been before the Tribunal as an appellant and lacked locus standi to approach for relief against the recovery proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that the applicant did not have any standing in the matter.

Issue 2: Modification of the order passed by the Tribunal in stay petition:
The appellant, represented by an Advocate, submitted that the company had taken over a factory after the expiry of a lease previously held by another entity. The Tribunal had earlier directed the previous entity, M/s. MCU, to deposit a certain amount, which was later modified by the High Court. However, M/s. MCU did not comply with the High Court's directive, leading to recovery proceedings initiated by the Department. The Tribunal found that the applicant's request for modification of the Tribunal's order was without substance. The Tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing that the applicant lacked standing in the matter.

Issue 3: Locus standi of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal for relief against recovery proceedings by the Department:
The Revenue argued that the applicant had no locus standi as the show cause notice had been adjudicated long back in 2008 in the name of M/s. MCU. The Tribunal observed that the applicant, despite being the possessor/lessor of the factory premises, had not followed the necessary procedure to substitute their name in the Tribunal's records. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant, though affected by the outcome of the appeal, did not have any standing as they were not a party to the appeals before the Tribunal. The application was dismissed, and the Registry was directed to verify certain developments related to the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of relief from detention/attachment of stock, modification of the Tribunal's order, and the locus standi of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal for relief against recovery proceedings. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of standing of the applicant in the legal proceedings before them.

← Previous Next →