2008 (8) TMI 263 - AT - Central Excise

Attachment of the property for recovery of Government dues against a company current appellant is a legal heir of late, former Director of the company, has challenged the attachment adjudicating authority has not considered the entire evidence on record, which would indicate that the property never belonged to Company - It is his submission that the entire property records show that late Director was the owner of the property no finding whether the ownership was transferred in the name of Company case remanded

Summary

Issues Involved:
Attachment of property for recovery of Government dues based on ownership dispute.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against an order for the attachment of a property to recover Central Excise duty from a company. The appellant, a legal heir, challenges the attachment, claiming the property belonged to the late director, not the company. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration based on evidence indicating ownership by the late director. The appellant argues that the authority overlooked this evidence and upheld the attachment. The respondent contends that the property was mortgaged to the bank, indicating company ownership.

The Tribunal found that the key issue was determining property ownership for recovery purposes. The Commissioner, in the remand proceedings, disregarded crucial evidence favoring the late director's ownership, relying solely on the bank's letter. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner for not considering all evidence and for relying on a previous order set aside by the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner to reevaluate all evidence regarding property ownership.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the adjudicating authority considering all relevant evidence, such as share certificates and land transfer documents, to determine property ownership accurately. As the Commissioner failed to appreciate crucial evidence in the impugned order, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter for a fresh consideration. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Commissioner for a comprehensive review of all evidence and granting the appellant a personal hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlights the necessity of a thorough examination of evidence to establish property ownership accurately in cases of attachment for recovery of dues. The remand to the Commissioner aims to ensure a fair assessment of all evidence and a just determination of property ownership, emphasizing the importance of due process and proper consideration of facts in legal proceedings.