9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, 300 bags which were attached, have been released in favour of the petitioner - the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no. 1 to adjudicate the issue whether the petitioner is at all liable for the payment of excise dues which accrued prior to 28th May, 2005. The petitioner is directed to file certified copy of this order before the Assistant Commissioner within a period of two weeks and the respondent no. 1 is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions of the petitioner by a reasoned order in accordance with law. In case, if on adjudication, it is found that the petitioner is not liable for the payment of any central excise dues, the sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... change of management. In response to the advertisement issued on 10.08.2001, the petitioner and M/s Upadhyay Sugar Mills submitted the proposal and after evaluating the proposal of the petitioner company was sanctioned by the BIFR, vide its order dated 18.06.2003. The aforesaid order dated 18.06.2003 was challenged by the company before the appellate authority by means of appeal No. 318 of 2003, which has been dismissed 15.07.2005. Against which, a writ petition No. 13037 of 2005, has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court. In pursuance of the order dated 18.06.2003, the petitioner has taken over Padrauna unit on 02.05.2005. The respondent no. 2 issued a notice on 12.08.2008 for realization of central excise duty.The petitioner filed repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of this unit stands failed. The petitioner has not been in possession of the two units and has no management or control over any of the two set of the company. Therefore, the central excise dues cannot be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly the reply filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of which is still pending. He further submits that in view of the subsequent development the matter requires consideration by the competent authority. We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the view that whether the amount of central excise duties which is for the period prior to 2005, can be recovered from the petitioner or not is a question of adjudication by the competent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
