2008 (8) TMI 263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l heir of late Shri Harish Chandra Gupta, former Director of the company, in whose name the property stood, in the records of the Government. The Central Excise duty was due from M/s. Sensotherm India Pvt. Ltd. Since the duty, penalty and other dues could not be recovered from the said company, the lower authorities passed an order for attachment of the property situated at No. 143A, Government Industrial Estate, Kandivi (West), Mumbai - 400 067, on the ground that the said property belonged to M/s. Sensotherm India Pvt. Ltd. In the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A-113/2007/CI(EB), dated 24-1-2007 [2007] (216) E.L.T. 701 (Tri.)] remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsidering the issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....used the records. 7. We find that the issue involved in this case is regarding whether the property, which was attached, belongs to a person from whom the duty/penalty, etc. is due. Vide our order dated 24-1-2007 was remanded the matter back to the Commissioner. We held as under:- "The dispute is whether the property, which was attached belong to the person from whom the duty/penalty, etc., is due. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner dated 19-1-2006 is set aside with a direction that the letter of the Bank should be considered and orders passed afresh after giving opportunity of personal hearing". (emphasis supplied) 8. It can be seen that the matter was remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner to decide the dispute as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of the Commissioner, we find that ld. Commissioner has only considered the letter dated 11-1-2007 of the Bank to come to a conclusion that the property belongs to the company. To our mind, the ld. Adjudicating authority has relied upon the findings of the earlier order dated 19-1-2006 to come to a conclusion that other evidences need not be considered by him. This would be an incorrect proposition in the law, as earlier order dated 19-1-2006 is set aside by our order dated 24-1-2007. Hence, it was for the adjudicating authority to consider the entire evidences on record to come to a conclusion whether the property belonged to the company or late Shri Harish Chandra Gupta. Since the evidences, which are relied upon by the ld. Counsel befor....