9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at Coimbatore. The petitioner firm was manufacturing M.S. Bars, M.S. Angles, M.S. Plates classified under sub-headings 7209.90, 7210.10 and 7209.10 respectively of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioner was not manufacturing goods during the relevant period, that attracted excise duty and hence there is no need for the appellant to obtain the Excise License. On 1-4-1987, the petitioner leased out its plant, machinery and building to M/s. Modern Steel Industries, Coimbatore for manufacture of the above items. The said lease period was for a period of three years and the said period came to an end on 1-4-1990. On the expiry of the said period of lease, the lessee M/s. Modem Steel Industries surrendered the possession of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant submitted that the appellant is not subject to pay duty in respect of the liability of the lessee and such liability arose out of manufacturing, alleged to have been made by the lessee M/s. Modern Steel Industries. Hence the same cannot be imposed on the appellant, the lessor. Further it is submitted that there was a lease in favour of M/s. Modern Steel Industries and after the expiry of lease, the plant and machinery were handed over to the appellant as early as 10-1-1991 and thereafter, the said lessee had no interest in the plant and machinery and hence the detention of the plant and machinery is wrong, illegal, without basis and justification, it is also submitted that there was no proper opportunity given to the appellant bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition, confirming the detention order passed by the Assistant Collector on 10-4-1991. After the dismissal of the said writ petition, within ten days, the appellant sent a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise, the above mentioned third respondent on 20-4-1991 stating that the building, plant and machinery under detention are the properties of M/s. S.B. Steels, and M/s. Modern Steel Industries was only the lessee and that the lease period had already, expired on 1-4-1990. In view of the expiry of lease period, the appellant had taken possession of the properties on 10-1-1991, which was before the date of detention order. The counter affidavit was also filed by the respondents in the impugned writ petition denying all the allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned respondents. They have not disclosed anything about the leasing out of the factory and also they have not said anything about it at the time of contesting the detention order passed by the Assistant Collector in the writ petition filed by the lessee in W.P. No. 4830 of 1991. Even in the above writ petition, the appellant herein has failed to bring to the notice of the court regarding the surrender of building, plant and machinery on 10-1-1991, in favour of the appellant herein, in the present writ appeal as well as in the earlier writ petition filed by the lessee, the fact remains that no one made any statement regarding the said surrender on 10-1-1991. On these facts, the learned Judge is right in holding that the said lease transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
