UNION OF INDIA Vs. DHARAMCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

(2.) The facts stated briefly are that Respondent No. 3 M/s. Parshwanath Industries was engaged in the manufacture of Organic Chemicals falling under Chapter-29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was also availing of MODVAT facility. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III passed an order dated 6-12-2000 imposing penalty of Rs. 2,60,000/- as well as an order dated 22-12-2003 confirming duty demand of Rs. 40,68,735/- with equal amount of penalty against Respondent No. 3. Thus the total outstanding duties payable by Respondent No. 3 were to the tune of Rs. 1,02,37,470/-. On account of failure on the part of Respondent No. 3 to make payment of outstanding government dues, an order of attachment came to be made by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise on 3-12-2004 under Rules 9 and 10 of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaults for Recovery of Govt. Dues) Rules, 1995.

(3.) The Respondent No. 2 Union Bank of India had filed proceedings before the learned Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in respect of its outstanding dues from the Respondent No. 3, pursuant to which a recovery certificate dated 2-7-2002 came to be issued for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 93,78,786.84 plus Rs. 1,45,668/-, which was forwarded to the Recovery Officer attached to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Superintendent, Central Excise Department, Kalol, addressed a communication to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, pointing out outstanding dues of Rs. 1,02,37,470/- of the Central Excise Department. The Debt Recovery Tribunal issued notice dated 29-2-2008 for the purpose of sale of the property of Respondent No. 3 along with public advertisement in the daily Newspaper 'Gujarat Samachar' on 21st March, 2008. In the said advertisement, against column No. 3 pertaining to the details of encumbrances to which the property was liable, it was mentioned 'not known'. Since in the advertisement the extent of value of outstanding government dues had not been mentioned, an application came to be made to the Recovery Officer to issue another advertisement cancelling the earlier tender notice. The Recovery Officer vide order dated 15-5-2008 rejected the objection raised by the Central Excise Department and also called upon the concerned officer who had signed the objections as to why action should not be taken against him under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have moved the present petition seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove.