LAMIFAB INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the subject plot was leased out by Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC), Vapi under a lease deed dated 22 -1 -1992 to one M/s. Nakhua Poly -Containers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Nakhua was also put in possession thereof. It appears that M/s. Nakhua had borrowed funds from Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation (GIIC); however, since M/s. Nakhua could not pay back the loans and advances to GIIC, the subject plot No. 4705 was taken over by GIIC in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Thereafter, GIIC transferred the subject plot to GIDC, and thus the subject plot came under possession of GIDC. It further appears that by a deed of assignment -cum -sale executed on 21 -7 -2009, GIDC sold and transferred the subject plot to one M/s. Poonam Enterprise, a proprietary concern of one M/s. Ravindrakumar Poonamchand Nagara. It also appears that GIIC released the original titles and documents in favour of Poonam Enterprise in view of the above assignment -cum -sale deed made by GIDC in favour of Poonam Enterprise. About two years thereafter, M/s. Poonam Enterprise sold and transferred the subject plot in favour of the petitioner firm by executing a deed of assignment -cum -conveyance on 2 -8 -2011 for a consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/ -. After purchasing the subject plot and having become the legal owner and having acquired lawful possession thereof, the petitioner firm proposed to use the plot also for its manufacturing activities. The subject plot is adjacent to the plots on which the petitioner firm has been conducting its manufacturing activities and it was for this reason that the petitioner firm has purchased this plot so that the expansion of manufacturing activities could be smoothly made by using the plot as a part of the factory. The petitioner firm, therefore, made an online application dated 12 -12 -2011 requesting the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to add the subject plot No. 4705 in the petitioners' Central Excise Registration. By a letter dated 29 -2 -2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, the application of the petitioner firm came to be rejected on the ground that GIIC had imposed a condition at the time of the auction and handing over the possession of assets of M/s. Nakhua as regards recovery of outstanding excise duty because M/s. Nakhua had not discharged dues amounting to Rs. 12,84,023/ - and interest thereon when their unit was closed down and that M/s. Poonam Enterprise was liable to pay all dues, taxes, cess, etc., of the Central Government for plot No. 4705; and this plot having been purchased by the petitioner firm, the liability to pay outstanding Government dues arose at the petitioner's end. The Assistant Commissioner also informed the petitioner firm that a fresh registration for the premises could not be issued unless the earlier registration was surrendered and cancelled and outstanding Government dues were paid. The Assistant Commissioner, by this letter, also directed the Range Superintendent to take necessary action for recovery of government dues by way of attachment of the petitioner's properties. Upon receiving the letter, the Superintendent of Central Excise also issued a letter dated 2 -3 -2012 requesting the petitioner firm to pay up outstanding Government dues of M/s. Nakhua.

(3.) The petitioner firm, therefore, filed a detailed letter/representation dated 10 -3 -2012 before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise as well as the Superintendent of Central Excise, and requested these officers not to initiate any action of recovery against the petitioner firm and also to add this plot in the petitioner's registration certificate because outstanding dues of M/s. Nakhua could not have been recovered from the petitioner firm in the facts of this case. The petitioner firm also referred to the facts as to how the plot was purchased by the petitioner firm and also as to how the petitioner was not required to pay any dues of M/s. Nakhua. However, the Assistant Commissioner replied by a letter dated 16 -3 -2012 and informed the petitioner firm that request for addition of the plot in the existing premises could not be considered. It is the case of the petitioner that the above referred stand of the central excise authorities has deprived the petitioner of the use of plot No. 4705 though this plot is adjacent to the petitioners' factory and the petitioners really require and need this plot for expansion of their manufacturing activities. The respondents have also sought to recover dues of M/s. Nakhua from the petitioner firm only because an application for addition of this plot is made by the petitioner firm, as otherwise the respondents have never even attempted to recover any amount from GIIC or GIDC or even M/s. Poonam Enterprise, though this plot was under the possession of these three entities for a long time. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this court praying for the reliefs noted hereinabove.