1959 (4) TMI 1 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition regarding attachment of goods hypothecated to the petitioner.
2. Interpretation of section 11 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 regarding recovery of dues.
3. Priority of claim between the Government and the petitioner over the attached goods.
4. Consideration of the Government's right to attach and sell the equity of redemption in the goods.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a public limited company, sought a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition to prevent the respondents from enforcing an attachment on goods hypothecated to the petitioner and lying at a specific location. The goods included cotton piece goods, hosiery yarn, and foreign cotton pledged to secure a cash credit account. The respondents had attached the goods under section 11 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, to recover outstanding excise duties owed by the borrower, despite the excise duty on the attached goods being paid in full. The petitioner contested the attachment, asserting its prior claim as a pledgee.

2. The court analyzed section 11 of the Act, which outlines methods for recovering government dues, including deduction from money owed, attachment or sale of excisable goods, and certificate proceedings. The focus of this case was on the second method, allowing the government to attach and sell excisable goods belonging to the debtor to recover dues. The court emphasized that the government's right to attach and sell goods is limited to the equity of redemption in pledged goods, as the ownership remains with the pledgee.

3. Considering the conflicting claims over the attached goods, the court determined that the government could proceed against the equity of redemption in the goods, subject to the petitioner's prior right as a pledgee. The petitioner had executed a bond to secure the debtor's dues to the government and had sold the goods, indicating a willingness to satisfy any valid claims. The court held that the government could recover its dues from the petitioner, including from the security provided, if the sale proceeds exceeded the petitioner's claim.

4. Ultimately, the court concluded that the government was entitled to attach and sell the equity of redemption in the goods under section 11 of the Act. The attachment challenged by the petitioner was not set aside entirely, as the government had a valid claim over the equity of redemption. Consequently, the court discharged the Rule, indicating no order as to costs, and upheld the government's right to proceed with the attachment and sale of the goods to recover outstanding dues.