TATA METALIKS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule in both the Petitions.

(2.) The Respondent No. 7 had been operating a Pig Iron factory at Redi and had run up huge debts to Banks and other Financial Institutions. The Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) one of the banks issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short "SARFAESI Act") on July 24, 2002 for the sum of Rs. 5,94,52,20,451/-. The IDBI Bank entered into an agreement with the Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund (hereinafter referred to as SASF) by which the IDBI Bank assigned/transferred to SASF the financial assistance granted by them to the borrower together with all securities and all rights in respect thereof. SASF issued an advertisement in "The Economic Times" calling for "Expression of Interest" from parties interested in purchase of assets of Usha ispat Limited at Redi and Satarda plants in Maharashtra. In October, 2005, SASF obtained consent of the three fourth in value of the secured creditors having charge on the assets as envisaged under Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act and issued notices to the borrowers for taking possession of the assets. The Authorised Officer of SASF took symbolic possession of the assets at Redi on 14.10.2005 in the presence of witnesses/Panchas, the representative/s of Respondent No. 7, the officials of M/s. Ferro Green Technologies Pvt. Ltd. valuer appointed for the purpose of taking inventory and valuation thereof, besides other officials of SASF. The Authorised Officer on taking possession of the assets caused an inventory of the assets to be taken by M/s. Ferro Green Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and published the possession notice in the newspapers as required under the SARFAESI Act. The Petitioner vide their letter dated October 20, 2005 filed an Expression of Interest (hereinafter referred to as EOI) for procuring the assets of the Redi plant offered for sale by SASF. The Petitioners made a final bid of Rs.115,00,00,000/- through a binding bid for acquisition of the assets as detailed in the Bid document. The Petitioner has set out the assumptions and understandings, based on which it had made the bid. The Petitioners have relied upon the Bid document and the terms and conditions made therein including the information on the assets, for the preparation of the bid.

(3.) At this stage, a demand notice dated 25.1.2006 was issued to the Petitioners by the Superintendent of Central Excise, demanding the sum of Rs. 12,98,00,000/- plus further interest due from Respondent No. 7. The Petitioners on 01.02.2006 applied for registration to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ratnagiri in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In terms of the said Rules, a manufacturer engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods is statutorily required to apply and obtain registration from the officer of Central Excise. Petitioners were informed by letter dated 1.2.2006 that an order had been passed refusing to grant registration, on the ground that in the said premises there is already an existing Central excise registration in favour of Respondent No. 7 and that registration has not been cancelled because Government dues are pending against them. Having refused to grant registration, Respondent No. 3 returned the application for registration with its enclosures without giving any opportunity to the Petitioners to represent their case. On account of the refusal, the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 759 of 2006 for the reliefs as prayed for therein.