2015 (10) TMI 2346 - AT - Central Excise

Claim of ownership of confiscated goods - appellant is claiming to be the owner of plant and machinery confiscated in the impugned order on the basis of the litigation between RIL and the appellant which was decided in arbitration on 14.03.2012, consequent to the arbitration proceedings, the appellant claims to be owner of the plant and machinery - Held that - The respondent are claiming that said plant and machinery has been confiscated and there ownership rest with Government of India. Although this Tribunal has powers to entertain the appeals against the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise / Commissioner (A) under Central Excise Act but this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the goods. Moreover, in the impugned order only plant and machinery owned by M/s. RIL has been confiscated. If appellant is claiming to be the owner of said plant and machinery it is a dispute of civil in nature and this Tribunal is not the proper forum to seek remedy for that. Moreover, it is the claim of the appellant in their written submission that they have approached to the respondent on 30.09.2011 first time to seek the permission of removal of its plant and machinery it is also a claim of the appellant that they were not knowing that any departmental proceedings are pending against RIL by issuance of the show cause notice dated 20.03.2000 which was adjudicated vide order dated 20.03.2007. When the proceedings of the respondent against M/s. RIL were not known to the appellant, question arises how the appellant came to know about the confiscation of the plant and machinery. Further, the appellant has written to the respondent to seek permission on 30.09.2011 why the appellant had not brought this fact in the knowledge of the Arbitrator. This act of the appellant creates doubts on the bonafides of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has not come with clear hands. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order based on ownership of plant and machinery confiscated by the department.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by M/s. Inox Air Products against an impugned order confiscating properties of M/s. Rathi Ispat Ltd. (RIL). The appellant claimed ownership of plant and machinery confiscated, citing lease agreements and arbitration proceedings. The appellant contended they were aggrieved as their proprietary rights were affected by the impugned order. The appellant argued they had locus standi to challenge the order before the Tribunal, relying on legal precedents. The appellant also argued that only the property owner by the defaulting party could be confiscated as per the Act and Rules. They claimed that the impugned order violated natural justice as they were not given notice or an opportunity to be heard before confiscation.

The respondent opposed the appellant's contentions, stating the appellant was not part of the original proceedings and lacked locus standi to appeal. The respondent argued that the impugned order had merged with a previous Tribunal order dismissing RIL's appeal. The respondent contended that the appellant's claim of ownership was a civil dispute and not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's challenge was limited to the ownership of confiscated goods, which was a civil dispute. The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to decide ownership issues and that the appellant had not approached the matter with clean hands. The Tribunal noted that the issue of ownership was pending before the Apex Court, indicating that the Tribunal could not decide on ownership. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that it did not have jurisdiction to decide ownership disputes and that the issue of ownership was pending before the Apex Court. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's failure to disclose information and the pending civil appeal further supported the dismissal of the appeal.