2018 (2) TMI 709 - AT - Central Excise

Attachment of property - case of assessee is that Section 11 proviso is not applicable where the department has taken the action as there is no business or trade transfer - Held that - In the instant case, the recovery is against M/s Ralliwolf Limited and the department has attached its property to protect the interest of the Revenue/recovery - When M/s Rallifwolf Limited is the owner as on today and also has the liability against the department then department has rightly attached the property to recover the said dues. The property was rightly attached - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Liability of Revenue against Ralliwolf Limited, Attachment of Property, Interpretation of Section 11 proviso

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai was filed against the order-in-original confirming a liability of ? 57.29 lakhs against Ralliwolf Limited. The case revolved around an agreement between Ralliwolf Limited and the appellant regarding the development rights of a property, where Ralliwolf Limited retained ownership. The department had attached the property, but the Commissioner lifted the attachment. The main argument was whether the attachment was justified to recover the dues from Ralliwolf Limited. The respondent contended that Section 11 proviso was not applicable as there was no transfer of business or trade, but the Tribunal held that since Ralliwolf Limited still owned the property and had liabilities, the attachment was valid to protect the Revenue's interest.

In the detailed analysis, it was noted that M/s Ralliwolf Limited, despite entering into an agreement with the appellant, remained the owner of the property. The Tribunal emphasized that the ownership was never transferred, and as Ralliwolf Limited still had liabilities towards the department, the attachment of the property was crucial for the recovery of dues. The Tribunal concluded that since the property was rightfully attached to safeguard the interests of the Revenue, the impugned order lifting the attachment was set aside, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed.

The judgment highlights the importance of protecting the Revenue's interests in cases where liabilities exist against a party who retains ownership of the property. The interpretation of Section 11 proviso was crucial in determining the validity of the attachment in this scenario, emphasizing that the attachment was necessary to recover the dues owed by Ralliwolf Limited. The decision underscores the significance of ensuring that proper measures are taken to secure the Revenue's rights in cases involving financial liabilities against entities retaining ownership of assets.