9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 22.08.2012 that the plant and machinery cannot be removed, as the petitioner has been informed by the Central Excise Department vide letter dated 6.2.2012, that its request to grant permission for removal of its plant and machinery from the factory of M/s. Rathi Isptat Ltd., Ghaziabad (M/s. RIL) cannot be acceded to, since the same was confiscated and their ownership rested with the Government of India. - writ petition dismissed - decided against the assessee. - Writ Tax No.-630 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2013 - Sunil Ambwani And Aditya Nath Mittal,JJ. For the Petitioner : S. D. Singh, Abeer Kumar,B. Agrawal,Kishore Kunal, Ms. Pearl Kumar, Ms. Shruti Sabharwal,Neil Hidderth,Rahan Batra, Shashi Mathews,Tarun Gulati For the Respondent : A.S.G.I., Ashok Bhatnagar, B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, S.P. Kesarwani, ORDER 1. We have heard Sri Bharat Jit Agarwal, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri S.D. Singh for the petitioner. Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - the Custom and Central Excise Department 2. On 21.05.2012, the learned counsel appearing for the Central Excise Department was allowed a weeks time, to obtain instructions. On 29.05.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, with prayers to set aside the order dated 6.2.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad rejecting the request of the petitioner to remove the plant and machinery leased out by it to Rathi Ispat Ltd, and which is subject matter of the arbitration award. Let a copy of the order be given to Shri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi for compliance." 4. According to office report dated 17.09.2012, the notices sent by registered post to M/s. Rathi Ispat Ltd - respondent No.4 have not been received back, after service. An affidavit of service by refusal has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Today, when the matter was taken up, we are informed that both the petitioner as well as Custom Central Excise Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above with the costs which I assess as Rs.20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) payable by the respondent to the Claimant. G. Respondent is directed to comply with this Award within a period of one month from the date of delivery of this Award. Award accordingly. Signed at New Delhi on 14th March 2012 (V.N. Khare)" 7. In the award, there is no reference to, or any mention about the investigation of Custom Central Excise Department pending against M/s. Rathi Ispat Ltd - respondent No.4, and the confiscation of entire plant and machinery of M/s. Rathi Ispat Ltd., including that of Inox Air products Ltd. It appears that both 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 petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) Demand interest at appropriate rate on the above amounts of confirmed demand of Central Excise duty under Section 11 AB of Central Excise Act 1944. (iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs.3,41,24,680/- on M/s. RIL under erstwhile Rule 9 (2) 52-A, 173 Q 226 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, for contravention of the provisions of Central Excise Rules read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act 1944. (v) I order confiscation of land, building plant, machinery material conveyance etc of M/s. RIL used in connection with manufacturer, production storage removal or disposal of offended goods under erstwhile Rules 173 Q (2) of the Central Excise Rule 1944. However, I give them the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.50 lakhs only (Rs. Fifty Lakhs only). (vi) I also impose penalty of Rs.50 lakhs only (Rs. Fifty Lakhs only) on Shri Anil Rathi, Director of M/s. RIL , under Rule 209 A of the central Excise Rules 19444. 20. The provisions of erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 appearing in this order may be read with the provisions of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 21. This order is being issued without prejudice to any other action th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
