https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1357 Detention of plant, machinery and factory premises under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustained because the alleged lease arrangement and surrender of possession were not disclosed to the revenue authorities at the relevant stage, and no documentary proof of transfer back of possession or ownership was produced. The Court treated the claimed lease as a bona fide afterthought devised to avoid the earlier detention order. On that basis, the consequential refusal to grant licence also disclosed no legal infirmity and was upheld. en-us Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1357 Detention of plant, machinery and factory premises under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sustained because the alleged lease arrangement and surrender of possession were not disclosed to the revenue authorities at the relevant stage, and no documentary proof of transfer back of possession or ownership was produced. The Court treated the claimed lease as a bona fide afterthought devised to avoid the earlier detention order. On that basis, the consequential refusal to grant licence also disclosed no legal infirmity and was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1357