9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (J) and K. K. Agarwal, Member (T) Shri Mathur Baya, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K. Lal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the order-in-original No. 01/Recovery Cell/MV/2007/Commr/RH dated 15-11-2007. 2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the attachment of the property for recovery of Government dues. The current appellant is a legal heir of late Shri Harish Chandra Gupta, former Director of the company, in whose name the property stood, in the records of the Government. The Central Excise duty was due from M/s. Sensotherm India Pvt. Ltd. Since the duty, penalty and other dues could not be recovered from the said company, the lower aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, which was produced by the appellants before the lower authorities in both the proceedings. 5. Ld. SDR would submit that the adjudicating authority has correctly followed the directions given in the remand proceedings by the Tribunal. It is his submission that the said property was mortgaged to the bank and the deed clearly indicated that it is the property of the company. 6. We considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 7. We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding whether the property, which was attached, belongs to a person from whom the duty/penalty, etc. is due. Vide our order dated 24-1-2007 was remanded the matter back to the Commissioner. We held as under:- "The dispute is w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k, viz., deed of mortgage dated 24-6-1994. Form No. 13, Form No. 08 and letter dated 9-3-1993 issued by the District Officer, Bombay Suburban District of Development. Moreover, Bank is not the authority to confer title of ownership and as such have no say in the matter relating to the ownership of certain property. As such, the Banks letter dated 11-1-2007 is not considered relevant." 9. On reading the above reproduced portion of the order of the Commissioner, we find that ld. Commissioner has only considered the letter dated 11-1-2007 of the Bank to come to a conclusion that the property belongs to the company. To our mind, the ld. Adjudicating authority has relied upon the findings of the earlier order dated 19-1-2006 to come to a con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
