9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rance or restriction under any law - Decided in favor of the assessee. - MA (ROM)-70059/2015 IN Ex. Appeal No.58583/13-EX [DB - MISC. ORDER NO.-70421/2016 - Dated:- 6-9-2016 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Alok Yadav, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Jt. Commr. (A.R.) for the Department Per Mr. Anil Choudhary : The appellants, M/s Inox Air Products Ltd. (IAPL for short), have filed the present Miscellaneous Application for recall/modification of the Final Order No.52366/2015-EX.(DB) dated 30.07.2015 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No.58583/2013. 2. The ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner, Mr. Alok Yadav, urges that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, I give them the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 50 lakhs only. 3. Thus, it is apparent that what was confiscated vide the Order-in-Original are only the land, building and assets of Rathi Ispat Ltd. 4. This Tribunal in the Final Order has also taken notice of the fact that the there was an arbitration proceeding going on between Inox Air Products Ltd. and Rathi Ispat Ltd. and vide Award/order dated 14.03.2012 by the sole arbitrator Hon ble Justice V.N. Khare (former Chief Justice of India), wherein it have been held that the appellant Inox Air Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of their plant and machinery leased out to Rathi Ispat Ltd. and in operative part of the order, it was ordered that the claimant- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , when we had passed an interim order giving direction to the Revenue to clarify as to the existence of any order of attachment, passed till date on the assets of IAPL lying under lease in the premises of the RIL and secondly, whether regarding the assets of IAPL lying in the premises of RIL, there exists any dispute of title either before the Hon ble Apex Court or before any other competent Court and to give the details of the same. In response thereto, a report have been submitted by the Joint Commissioner (Revenue), Central Excise and Service Tax, Ghaziabad dated 22.08.2016 vide Communication C.No.(v)(15) REV/CESTAT/1286/13/431, wherein it is stated and clarified that the Commissioner Central Excise, Ghaziabad vide Order dated 29.03.2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Apex Court, therefore, this Tribunal have no jurisdiction to decide the ownership of impugned goods. 9. And also recall para 9 of the Final Order stating that in these terms appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed . 10. We replace the same with our following findings: 10.1 We are satisfied that there is no order of confiscation vide Order-in-Original dated 29.03.2007 (the impugned order) on the assets of the appellant Inox Air Product Ltd. lying in the premises of Rathi Ispat Ltd. Further, it have been clarified by the Revenue that there is no order of any attachment on the assets of Inox Air Product Ltd. lying in the premises of RIL. We have also examined and are satisfied that the issue of ownership of the assets of IAP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
