https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245030 Attachment under Section 142(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act was confined to property belonging to, or under the legal control of, the defaulter. The leased land and building could not be treated as recoverable assets once the lessee had stopped operations and the lease term had expired, because the premises remained the lessor's property. A lease clause requiring the factory not to be vacated until export obligations were discharged, and an unregistered lease deed, could not enlarge the statutory recovery power or create liability against the true owner beyond the Act. On that basis, the attachment was not legally sustainable. en-us Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245030 Attachment under Section 142(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act was confined to property belonging to, or under the legal control of, the defaulter. The leased land and building could not be treated as recoverable assets once the lessee had stopped operations and the lease term had expired, because the premises remained the lessor's property. A lease clause requiring the factory not to be vacated until export obligations were discharged, and an unregistered lease deed, could not enlarge the statutory recovery power or create liability against the true owner beyond the Act. On that basis, the attachment was not legally sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245030