2017 (2) TMI 253 - AT - Central Excise

Attachment of property - raw materials, work-in-progress, and finished goods - appellant contention that due to attachment, it has become practically impossible for appellant to run their factory - Held that - the re-adjudication is still pending with respect to the part of demand, set aside by this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 19th March, 2013 amounting to ₹ 12,85,084/-. Also appellant has made substantial payment of the confirmed demand during the last 8 months - the order of the attachment is modified to this effect that-the appellant is permitted to run their factory normally and the attachment on raw material, work-in-progress and finished goods is set aside, so as to enable the appellant to run their factory and clear the finished goods. The adjudicating authority directed to complete the re-adjudication proceeding within the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass an appropriate order upon the remanded issue - appeal allowed in part - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Attachment order affecting the operation of the factory.
2. Pending re-adjudication of the demand set aside by the Tribunal.
3. Request for modification of the attachment order and completion of re-adjudication.

Analysis:
The Miscellaneous Application was filed by M/s. Sukalp Agencies concerning a Final Order confirming part of the demand and setting aside another part for ?12,85,084/-. The appellant had appealed to higher courts, but the Tribunal's decision was upheld. The appellant had paid ?19,58,726/- of the confirmed demand while facing an attachment order on their assets, hindering factory operations.

Regarding the attachment order, the appellant's Counsel highlighted the difficulty in running the factory due to the attachment of raw materials, work-in-progress, and finished goods. They requested a modification of the order to allow the factory to operate smoothly and complete the re-adjudication as per the Tribunal's Final Order.

After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal noted that re-adjudication was pending for the demand set aside, amounting to ?12,85,084/-. Acknowledging the substantial payments made by the appellant, the Tribunal modified the attachment order. They allowed the appellant to run the factory normally by setting aside the attachment on raw materials, work-in-progress, and finished goods. The adjudicating authority was directed to complete the re-adjudication within 90 days and the appellant to make regular deposits towards the pending demand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the application, permitting the factory operation, directing completion of re-adjudication, and outlining deposit requirements for the pending demand. The revenue was instructed not to take coercive measures until final adjudication of the demand set aside by the Tribunal.