2016 (11) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of leased out assets - first charge - Held that - there have been a miscarriage of justice as this Tribunal was misled by Revenue at the time of earlier Final Order as Revenue had stated that the issue of ownership of the assets of Inox Air Product Ltd. lying in RIL, is pending before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2196 of 2012 - it have been clarified by the Revenue that there is no order of any attachment on the assets of Inox Air Product Ltd. lying in the premises of RIL - IAPL is entitled to remove their assets lying in the premises of RIL without any hindrance or restriction under any law - Decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Recall/modification of Final Order, Ownership dispute of assets, Confiscation of assets, Arbitration proceedings, Existence of attachment order, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Release of assets.

Recall/Modification of Final Order:
The appellants filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall/modification of the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no dispute pending regarding the ownership of the assets leased out to another company. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal citing a civil dispute pending before the Supreme Court. The counsel presented a Special Leave Petition pending before the Apex Court, clarifying that it related to the first charge over the assets of the company. The Tribunal noted that only the land, building, and assets of the other company were confiscated, not the appellant's assets.

Confiscation of Assets and Arbitration Proceedings:
The Tribunal acknowledged an ongoing arbitration proceeding between the appellant and the other company. The arbitrator had ruled in favor of the appellant, stating they were the rightful owner of the plant and machinery leased out. The order directed the other company to permit the removal of the assets and pay outstanding dues. The counsel argued that no confiscation or attachment orders existed on the appellant's assets, urging for a modification of the Final Order to clarify this and direct the return of the assets.

Existence of Attachment Order and Jurisdiction of Tribunal:
After a report clarified the absence of formal attachment orders on the appellant's assets, the Tribunal found a miscarriage of justice due to being misled by the Revenue regarding the ownership dispute. It recalled and modified the Final Order, stating there was no confiscation or attachment on the appellant's assets. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to remove their assets from the other company's premises without hindrance and directed the Commissioner to release the assets within four weeks.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application, rectified the Final Order, and directed the release of the appellant's assets. The judgment clarified the absence of confiscation or attachment orders on the appellant's assets and affirmed their right to remove the assets from the other company's premises. The decision highlighted the importance of accurate information and rectifying miscarriages of justice to ensure fair outcomes.