9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grieved by the order dated 25-3-2008 in I.A. No. 101 of 2008 in O.S. No. 32 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby the petition filed by the first respondent herein under Order XXXIX Rule 1 C.P.C. for interim in junction, was partly allowed. 2. Central Excise Duty has been determined by the competent authority whereunder and whereby Rs. 53.00 lakhs and odd was payable to the Central Excise Department by the second respondent company herein. The first respondent company herein purported to have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the second respondent herein to undertake commercial production of finished goods on conversion charges apart from supplying raw material and incurring the cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposal or change. When the Central Excise authorities have proceeded m accordance with law, their actions have been stalled by way of granting injunction When a specific plea has been taken by the appellants herein in their counter affidavit filed before the court below that the succeeding company is liable to pay arrears and if the same are not paid, the department can recover the amount by way of attachment and sale of plant, machinery and excisable goods. That aspect has not at all been considered by the trial court. The entire order of trial court goes to show that it was decided as if it is an appeal against the order of determination of the duty In the counter filed by the appellants, it is specifically stated that the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is very clear that all the excisable goods, materials, plants, machinery, vessels, etc of succeeding company may also be attachable by the competent authority This aspect of the law is completely overlooked by the trial Court The finding that the first respondent was paying conversion charges and other manufacturing charges to the second respondent and that the third respondent is paying excise duty to petitioners herein is without basis and material on record Similarly, the finding that the ownership of all the materials like sponge iron lumps, sponge iron finishes, sponge iron briquettes and other residues vest with the first respondent herein and not attachable, is totally de void ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
