2006 (4) TMI 295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. This stay application is directed against order-in-appeal which has declined to interfere in the attachment order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants purchased a factory land from Rajasthan Financial Corporation. The Central Excise department had some confirmed demand against the old factory and the same was no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hrined in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which does not empower the Tribunal to interfere in such matters. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that in this case there is no question of any stay of duty or penalty as there is no quantification. The Tribunal being a creature of statute cannot go beyond the provisions of Central Excise Act. Since the attachment was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X