By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 29, 2018: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed against the Order dated 14/05/2008 passed by the CCE, Mumbai-III .

Brief facts are that a CE duty liability of Rs.57.29 lakhs was confirmed against M/s Ralliwolf Limited by CESTAT vide its order dated 02/09/2005 .

Incidentally, M/s Ralliwolf Limited entered into an agreement with the respondent M/s Nirmal Holdings on 04/08/2005 where M/s Ralliwolf Limited's property located at LBS Marg was the subject-matter. As per the agreement, the respondent had taken the development rights from M/s Ralliwolf Limited who did not surrender the ownership inasmuch as M/s Ralliwolf Limited is still the owner of the property.

For recovery of the CE dues, the department attached the said property, however, the Commissioner vide the impugned order held that the attachment is not required and the same was ordered to be lifted.

Being aggrieved, the department filed the present appeal way back in the year 2008 .

After hearing both sides, the Bench inter alia observed –

"5. The main submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the section 11 proviso is not applicable where the department has taken the action as there is no business or trade transfer. But fact remains that in the instant case, M/s Ralliwolf Limited is still the owner as the ownership was never transferred. In the instant case, the recovery is against M/s Ralliwolf Limited and the department has attached its property to protect the interest of the Revenue/recovery.

6. When M/s Ralliwolf Limited is the owner as on today and also has the liability against the department then department has rightly attached the property to recover the said dues. To protect the interest of Revenue, the property was rightly attached…"

The impugned order was set aside and the Revenue appeal was allowed.

(See 2018-TIOL-359-CESTAT-MUM)