TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioner was not manufacturing goods during the relevant period, that attracted excise duty and hence there is no need for the appellant to obtain the Excise License. On 1-4-1987, the petitioner leased out its plant, machinery and building to M/s. Modern Steel Industries, Coimbatore for manufacture of the above items. The said lease period was for a period of three years and the said period came to an end on 1-4-1990. On the expiry of the said period of lease, the lessee M/s. Modem Steel Industries surrendered the possession of the plant, machinery and building to the appellant on 10-1-1991. After taking over the possession of the plant, machinery and building from the lessee, the appellant made arrangement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the lessee M/s. Modern Steel Industries. Hence the same cannot be imposed on the appellant, the lessor. Further it is submitted that there was a lease in favour of M/s. Modern Steel Industries and after the expiry of lease, the plant and machinery were handed over to the appellant as early as 10-1-1991 and thereafter, the said lessee had no interest in the plant and machinery and hence the detention of the plant and machinery is wrong, illegal, without basis and justification, it is also submitted that there was no proper opportunity given to the appellant before passing the detention order and the detention order was passed when the lessee was not in possession of the plant and machinery It is also further contended that this is not a ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Superintendent of Central Excise, the above mentioned third respondent on 20-4-1991 stating that the building, plant and machinery under detention are the properties of M/s. S.B. Steels, and M/s. Modern Steel Industries was only the lessee and that the lease period had already, expired on 1-4-1990. In view of the expiry of lease period, the appellant had taken possession of the properties on 10-1-1991, which was before the date of detention order. The counter affidavit was also filed by the respondents in the impugned writ petition denying all the allegations wherein it was made clear that, only to circumvent the detention order dated 7-2-1991 and the subsequent refusal of this Court to interfere with the detention order, the appellant an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Assistant Collector in the writ petition filed by the lessee in W.P. No. 4830 of 1991. Even in the above writ petition, the appellant herein has failed to bring to the notice of the court regarding the surrender of building, plant and machinery on 10-1-1991, in favour of the appellant herein, in the present writ appeal as well as in the earlier writ petition filed by the lessee, the fact remains that no one made any statement regarding the said surrender on 10-1-1991. On these facts, the learned Judge is right in holding that the said lease transaction does not appear to be a bona fide one and the transaction is bogus and an after-thought. The learned Single Judge also considered the scope of Rule 230 of Central Excise Rules and f....