9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 27.03.2000 to 26.03.2006. Since M/s Siddhnath Exports defaulted in payment of confirmed excise duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 4,59,00,617/-, the recovery proceeding of the said amount was initiated from the Appellants initially by attaching the said property on 29.11.2004 but later with direction of Hon'ble Gujrat High a Notice was issued to them 11.10.2005, which on adjudication was confirmed on 29.01.2009 for attachment of the property belonging to the appellants. The said attachment order was challenged before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, upheld the said order. Hence, the present appeals. 4. The learned Advocate for the Appellants submits that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 (298) ELT 612 (Tri-Ahmd), observed that recovery of confirmed dues pending against the lessee - EOU cannot be recovered from the lessor even though the lessee EOU had vacated the premises before expiry of the lease period. It is his contention that the said judgment was followed by the Tribunal subsequently in the case of Shri Ram Narayan Dyeing & Printing Mills Vs CCE Surat-I - Order No.A/10273/2014, dt.05.02.2014. 5. Per contra, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue has submitted that the facts in the present case are slightly different from the facts in Rajbali Ismail Rajbara Ismail's case. In the said case, the lease deed was unregistered and also recovery notice was issued after expiry of lease pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that recovery notice in the present case was issued before expiry of lease period and the present lease deed was registered, hence the said decision is not applicable to the present case, which in my opinion, is insignificant and not relevant to the interpretation of Section 142(C)(ii) of Customs Act, 1962 in fastening the liability on the lessor. Also, I find that after vacation of the said premises by the Appellant, it was leased again to another assessee by the Appellant to carryout manufacture in the said premises, and the Department allowed the same by extending Central Excise registration to the new lessee on 28.05.2003. 9. Thus, following the precedent laid down in Rajabali Ismail Rajbara case,(supra) I do not fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
