Release of attached assets turns on whether confiscation or attachment actually covers the assessee's property.

Where no confiscation or attachment had been issued against an assessee's plant and machinery, and no subsisting title dispute was pending, the assets could not be withheld merely because they were lying in another company's . The order of confiscation was found to relate to the other company's assets, not the appellant's property, and the Revenue accepted that no formal attachment covered the appellant's assets. On that basis, the appellant was entitled to immediate release and removal of its assets, and the respondent was directed to restore possession forthwith.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assets of the appellant lying in the premises of the other company were liable to be treated as confiscated or attached, and whether the appellant was entitled to their release and removal.

Analysis: The order of confiscation under the adjudication order was found to relate to the assets of the other company and not to the appellant's plant and machinery. The Revenue clarified that no formal attachment had ever been issued against the appellant's assets. The earlier view that title to the appellant's assets was pending before the Supreme Court was found to be incorrect. On these facts, the appellant's assets could not be withheld and the appellant was entitled to remove them without hindrance.

Conclusion: The appellant's assets were not subject to confiscation or attachment, and the respondent was directed to release them forthwith.

Final Conclusion: The rectified order granted the appellant complete relief by restoring its right to take back its assets from the premises where they were installed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no confiscation or attachment exists against an assessee's assets and no subsisting title dispute is pending, the assessee is entitled to immediate release and removal of its property.

---