2004 (3) TMI 75 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ petition for quashing order and opening seals on Stenter machine.
2. Dispute of ownership of Stenter machine.
3. Legality of sealing and detention of the machine.
4. Communication regarding manufacturing activities and legal embargo.
5. Compliance with Central Excise Rules and relief granted to the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash orders and open seals on the Stenter machine. The respondent had taken on license the factory premises and machinery, but a dispute arose regarding ownership of the Stenter machine. An Arbitrator's award favored the petitioner's ownership. The respondents sealed the machine under Central Excise Rules due to alleged non-payment of duty by another party. The petitioner argued the sealing was illegal, depriving them of their rights.

2. The ownership dispute was resolved in favor of the petitioner by the Arbitrator's award. The respondents communicated that there was no legal hindrance to the petitioner restarting manufacturing activities. The machine was detained for non-payment of dues by another party, not the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to operate the machine freely after ownership confirmation.

3. The sealing and detention of the Stenter machine were done in accordance with Central Excise Rules due to non-payment of dues by another party. The petitioner's representation that the factory was non-operational led to the sealing. The communication from the respondents allowed the petitioner to resume operations as per rules, indicating no illegality in the actions taken.

4. The communication from the respondents clarified the absence of any legal obstacle for the petitioner to restart manufacturing activities. The petitioner's representation was declined, affirming the petitioner's liberty to use the machinery in compliance with relevant rules. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the actions of the respondents.

5. The court concluded that there was no basis for interfering with the respondents' actions under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court. The petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the communication and orders issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted the freedom to utilize the machinery in line with the applicable rules.