LAWS(P&H)-2004-3-140

S.S. TEXTILES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Decided On March 08, 2004
S.S. Textiles Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has claimed a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 21 -9 -2001. Annexure P -15, and order dated 4 -3 -2002, Annexure P -19, and for issuance of a direction to the respondent to open the seals on the Stenter machine of the petitioner

(2.) VIDE licence deed dated 2 -10 -1998, respondent No. 3 took on licence the factory premises of the petitioner and to use the plant, machinery, land and building for a period of two years. On expiry of the licence period, respondent No. 3 shifted his manufacturing activities on 22 -10 -2000 in the same very area and shifted his stock of colours and chemicals, accessories and designs to the new premises without clearing the due Excise duty The action of respondent No. 3 was brought to the notice of the Central Excise Authorities on 26 -10 -2000 vide communication, Annexure P -3, by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has sought a certificate "that the factory is no more working or workable and excisable since 22 -10 -2000". In pursuance of such communication, Stenter machine was sealed on 27 -10 -2000 by the respondents in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 96ZQ(7) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As per respondents, the machine was sealed to give relief to the concerned parties so that the duty may not keep accruing thereafter. The sealing was not meant to seize, attach or in any way take possession of Stenter machine.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Stenter machine owned by the petitioner and installed in its factory premises was sealed on 27 -10 -2000. The machinery was illegally sealed as there were no pending dues of the petitioner in respect of which the respondents were competent to seize or attach the machinery of the petitioner. Still further, the seals have not been opened by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner has been deprived of the right to use the machinery which has affected the civil rights of the petitioner.