2022 (12) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Customs and Central Excise. COMMON ORDER: (PER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN) This order will dispose of Writ Petition Nos.5247 of 2006, 3428 of 2007, 6180 of 2007 & 18108 of 2007. 2. We have heard Mr. B.Chandrasen Reddy and Mr. S. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. We have also heard Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 i.e., Customs and Central Excise. 3. We take up Writ Petition No.3428 of 2007 as the lead case. 4. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of notice dated 24.08.2006 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Arrears Recovery Cell, Hyderabad for recovery of excise du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....00 towards central excise duty and penalty as per the order-in-original dated 15.02.1998 which was subsequently modified by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal vide the order dated 15.03.1994. At the time of purchase of the said land by the petitioner through the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, M/s. Midwest Alloys Pvt. Limited had neither paid the central excise duty nor the penalty. Accordingly, recovery action was initiated by the excise authorities in terms of proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10. In the course of the hearing today, we find that issue raised in this batch of writ petitions has been answered by the Supreme Court in Rana Girders Limi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the entire unit as a business, as per the statutory framework he was not liable for discharging the dues of the Excise Department." 11. Supreme Court thereafter held that as far as dues of central excise are concerned, those are neither related to plant and machinery nor to the land and building. Thus, it did not arise out of the said properties. Dues of central excise became payable on the manufacturing of excisable items by the erstwhile owner. Therefore, the excise duties were in respect of those items which were produced and not the plant and machinery which were used for the purpose of manufacturing. It has been held as follows: "23. We may notice that in the first instance it was mentioned not only in the public notice b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re not related to the said plant and machinery or the land and building and thus did not arise out of those properties. Dues of the Excise Department became payable on the manufacturing of excisable items by the erstwhile owner, therefore, these statutory dues are in respect of those items produced and not the plant and machinery which was used for the purposes of manufacture. This fine distinction is not taken note of at all by the High Court." 12. This decision has been followed by this Court in W.P.No.5340 of 2007, Gopal Agarwal v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad, decided on 29.12.2014. While setting aside similar notice, this Court had however left it open to the excise authorities to take any other steps permis....