9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. On 21.05.2012, the learned counsel appearing for the Central Excise Department was allowed a weeks time, to obtain instructions. On 29.05.2012, the Court passed the following order:- "Shri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, order of confiscation passed again M/s Rathi Ispat Limited (respondent no. 4) may also be brought on record. Shri Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel has appeared for the Bank. Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for the first time, the petitioner has been informed by letter dated 6th February, 2012 that plant and machinery which were in the custody of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent no. 4. Issue notice to M/s Rathi Ispat Limited. Steps within three days. It will be open to the petitioners to serve dasti summon on respondent no. 4. Let dasti summon be also issued. List on 18.9.2012. Shri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi will instruct the Central Excise Department to move an application in O.M.P. No. 708 of 2012 (Rathi Ispat Ltd v. Inox Air Product Ltd) pending in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi arising out of arbitration award and to inform the Court that the entire plant and machinery including the plant and machinery covered by the arbitration award was confiscated by the Central Excise Department on 29.3.2007, and that a Writ Petition No. 630 of 2012 filed by M/s Inoc Air Products Ltd is pending in this Court, wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Claimant is entitled to remove the plant equipment leased out to the Respondent and installed at Respondent's factory premises at Ispat Nagar, Ghaziabad after days' notice to the Respondent. The Respondent is directed to permit the Claimant to dis-mantle and take back the plants and machineries installed at Respondent factory premises at Ispat Nagar, Ghaziabad without creating any hindrances. B. Respondent shall pay to the Claimant the principal sum of Rs.2,44,57,950/- Rupees Two Crore Forty Four Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Only) within 30 days from the date of pronounce of this Award, towards dues owed by the Respondent to the Claimant till March 2007. C. Admittedly the Claimant stopped production of the gases after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth the parties to the arbitration proceedings did not choose to inform the Arbitrator, of the investigation and confiscation of the entire plant and machinery by the Central Excise Department on 29.03.2007. 8. M/s. Rathi Ispat Ltd filed an appeal in Delhi High Court against the award in which it has been directed to pay balance of lease rent to the petitioner. In the proceedings before the Delhi High Court on 6.8.2012, the counsel appearing for M/s. Rathi Ispat Ltd stated that his client had no objection if the plant and machinery is handed over to the petitioner - M/s. Inox Air Products Ltd, and it is dismantled, and for that purpose, the parties agreed and the High Court appointed a Commissioner to carry out and supervise dismantling. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner has filed a first amendment application, enclosing order in Original No. 20/Comm/GZB/2007 dated 29.03.2007. The operative portion of the order dated 29.03.2007, is read as follows:- "Order (I) Confirm the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.2,67,00,348/- against M/s. RIL and order recovery of the same from them under erstwhile Rule 9 (2) of Central Excise Rules 1944, read with proviso to Section 11 A (1) of Central Excise Act (ii) Confirm the demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.74,24,332/- against M/s. RIL and order recovery of the same from them under erstwhile Rule 9 (2) Central Excise Rules 1944, read with proviso to Section 11 A (1) of Central Excise Act (iii) Demand interest at appropriate rate on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machinery, material, conveyance etc of M/s. RIL used in connection with manufacture, production, storage, removal, or disposal of offended goods. The order is not addressed to nor is applicable to the plant & machinery leased out by the petitioner to M/s. RIL and thus only M/s. RIL could have and has has filed an appeal against the order. 12. We are unable to appreciate the submissions. The confiscation order does not exclude the plaint and machinery of the petitione. The plant & machinery was leased out to M/s. RIL in the year 2003. A dispute arose between the petitioner and M/s. RIL in the year 2006, and was referred to the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered into the reference and was ceased of the matter until the award was made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
