TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-156, RIICO Industrial Area, Ajitgarh, Sikar. To the extent of Rs. 8,38,35,449/- 2. As per the facts of the case, two complaint cases were filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan by Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jaipur, on 05.08.2018 (RSPCB) vide CB No. 156/2018, (354/2010) & CB No. 157/2010 (353/2010). In the said complaints, it is alleged that M/s Agribiotech Industries ltd. Had filed an application before the Ministry of Environment & Forest, Govt. of India, New Delhi, Central Ground Water Authority, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, New Delhi, and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jaipur, Rajasthan for consent to establish distillery unit at S.P.-156, RIICO Industrial Area, Ajitgarh, Sikar, which was subsequently granted by the above authorities subject to compliance of certain specific and general conditions, enforceable under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 along with their Amendments and Rules. The Central Government had issued Environment Impact Assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oard granted consent to operate the unit for a period of six months which was subsequently extended up to 31.08.2010 subject to above conditions. The company is grain-based distillery unit, in which Rice, Bajra, Sorghum, Wheat and Corn etc. are used as raw material. The company was authorized to produce 45000 liters of Rectified Spirit per day and it used water in the process of said production, and polluted water was discharged as effluent. The Board had conducted various inspections of the unit on 28.08.2008, 17.02.2009 & 11.11.2009 and collected the samples of discharged treated effluent and it was found that the unit/plant was violating the stipulated conditions/guidelines of the Board. It was also found that the Effluent Treatment Plant of the unit was not working as per the prescribed standards of the Board. Environment & Forest Ministry had given environment clearance to the company for production of 45000 liters rectified spirit per day. However, the company produced 65000 liters per day against the approved limit, without any environment clearance/approval from Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, thereby violating the provisions of Environment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 45,000 liters to 65,000 liters per day. 2. Excess effluent being discharged on open land. 3. Cess pool observed on open land. 20.05.2011 1. Unit failed to install RO system to upgrade ETP and accommodate excess effluent for treatment. 08.02.2012 1. Unit failed to install RO system to upgrade ETP and accommodate excess effluent for treatment. 2. More plantations are required, housekeeping to be improved. 14.02.2013 1. Treated waste water found discharged on land in form of cess pool. 2. No progress on installation of bio digester. The details of the various consents accorded to the company by the Rajasthan Pollution Control are also tabulated as under: Sr. No. Nature Validity From Validity To Consented Capacity 1. Consent to Operate 31.10.2007 30.04.2008 45 KL/day 2. Consent to Operate 01.05.2008 31.08.2010 45 KL/day 3. Revocation of Consent to Operate and Directions for closer 18.03.2009 15.04.2009 0 4. Consent to Operate 16.04.2009 15.07.2009 45 KL/day 5. Consent to Operate 16.07.2009 15.07.2012 45 KL/day 6. Consent to Operate 08.07.2010 30.06.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2010 45,000 44,88,194 08.07.2010-22.02.2012 65,000 1,12,898 23.02.2012-22.07.2012 45,000 23,73,609 23.07.2012-16.10.2012 45,000 0 17.10.2012-31.03.2013 65,000 0 Total 1,38,08,304 On the basis of said excess production ED calculated the proceeds of crime to the extent of 8,30,15,164/-, which is tabulated as under: Srl. No. Financial Years Excess Production (in liters) Profit (Per Liter) Total Value (in Rs.) 1. 2007-08 62038 5.97 370367/- 2. 2008-09 4945743 7.23 35757722/- 3. 2009-10 4880129 4.97 24254241/- 4. 2010-11 1546785 4.82 7455504/- 5. 2011-12 624583 6.77 4228427/- 6. 2012-13 1749026 6.26 10948903/- Total 13808304 83015164/- On the basis of said investigation ED attached the property of the Appellant (as mentioned in Para No. 1 above), vide Provisional Attachment Order No. 06/2018 dated 31.10.2018, and thereafter, filed Original Complaint No. 1059/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of PAO. The Adjudicating Authority being satisfied with the allegations ment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onducted. Accordingly, he stressed that the alleged period of offence is from May, 2009 to August, 2010. Hence, it is apparent on record that no predicate offence was committed by the appellant company prior to May, 2009 and after August, 2010, but ED has also calculated the proceeds of crime prior to May, 2009 and even after August, 2010. Prayer is accordingly made to delete the said excess entries being not the part of predicate offence pertaining to prosecution complained filed by RSPCB. Ld. Counsel for the appellant company contended that the attached property was purchased from the claim funds in the year 2005 before installation of manufacturing unit. He pointed out that the said immovable property cannot be attached as value thereof. Alternatively, the said property attached being the value thereof can be permitted to be substituted to the extent of generation of actual proceeds of crime, if any, as the appellant company is not admitting this fact of POC. The ED has calculated the proceeds of crime on the basis of replies to its queries mentioned in the questionnaire with respect to excess production and thereafter on the basis of alleged excess production, ED calculat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any was mortgaged to the Bank by deposit of original title of the property in question on 08.03.2006 as collateral security. The said credit facilities were renewed/enhanced from time to time and lastly on 29.05.2018. As on date of filing of appeal the loan was to the extent of Rs. 8,57,12,646.95/- as on 15.01.2019 and hence question of attaching property does not arise being already mortgaged with the appellant bank. He further argued that in case of any default in the repayment of said credit facilities and declaration of the loan account as non-performing asset, then the appellant bank has first charge/lien over the said immovable property and has right to take the possession of the same as per the provisions of SARFEASI Act, 2002. Prayer is accordingly made to set aside the impugned order qua the mortgaged property of the appellant bank. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent ED controverted the submission made by the Ld. counsel for the appellant company. He argued that the appellant company while making the excess production of liquor to the violation of terms and conditions and by not installing the proper plant and machinery for treatment of the effluents h....