MISTY MEDOWS PVT LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Misty Medows Pvt Limited inter alia with the prayer that petitioner be held not liable for payment of central excise dues of M/s. Pankaj Forging Ltd. on account of transfer of its land and building, which was purchased by the petitioner in public auction from RIICO. Petitioner has prayed the notice dtd. 7/2/2012 (Annexure-7) and 26/4/2012 (Annexure-9) issued by the Central Excise Department be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the respondent nos.1 to 3 be restrained from recovering the excise dues from the petitioner and refund the amount of Rs.7,09,777.00 and Rs.3,26,777.00 paid to them by the petitioner vide cheques dtd. 10/1/2013 along with interest @ 12% per annum, which the petitioner had to pay under coercion.

(2.) Facts of the case are that respondent no.4-the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (for short-'the RIICO') sold the land, buildings and plant and machinery owned by M/s. Pankaj Forgings Ltd., the defaulting unit. Petitioner offered to purchase the land and building only for a sale consideration of Rs.160.00 lakhs. The offer made by the petitioner was accepted by the RIICO and a deed of conveyance was executed on 19/2/1999 in between the petitioner and the RIICO, whereby the land and buildings of M/s. Pankaj Forgings Ltd. were transferred in favour of petitioner. Petitioner has placed on record the copies of the public notice published in Economic Times dtd. 26/6/1998 and the conveyance deed dtd. 19/2/1999. According to clause-16 of the conveyance deed, the assets agreed to be sold under the agreement to sale were described free from all prior encumbrances except charges of the Corporation/RFC for payment of balance amount of sale consideration and interest, costs, charges, additional interest etc. thereon and as provided in Clause-7 of the deed. Clause-7 stipulated any expenses on account of registration of sale deed/lease deed at any time including the bifurcation of the land/sub leasing/sub-letting, shall be borne by the purchaser. While the land and buildings were sold to the petitioner, the plant and machinery were sold by RIICO in favour of M/s. Ashwani Kumar and Company, New Delhi, which is evident from the letters dtd. 17/9/1998 and 26/9/1998, placed on record respectively as Annexure-5 and 6.

(3.) Shri Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-company purchased the land for the purpose of developing farmhouses, resorts, buildings; residential/ commercial on it and to dispose off or maintain the same in any manner they liked. In fact, petitioner raised various constructions over the building and disposed off its most parts. However, it was shocked to receive notice dtd. 7/2/2012 from the office of the respondent no.3-Superintendent, Central Excise Range-I, Bhiwari, Alwar, wherein a demand of Rs.11,55,723.00 was raised along with interest @ 24% per annum towards dues of excise against M/s. Pankaj Forging Pvt. Ltd. This notice refers to the earlier notices dtd. 10/7/2003, 12/1/2003, 13/1/2004 and 13/9/2004 alleged to have been addressed to the petitioner. However, none of these communications was ever received by the petitioner. It is contended that petitioner immediately replied to the notices through its counsel denying to pay the dues against M/s. Pankaj Forging Ltd. The respondent no.3 again reiterated the demand by another letter dtd. 26/4/2012, which was again refuted by the petitioner through his counsel vide reply dtd. 25/9/2012. It is contended that the respondent is seeking to rely on a letter of undertaking said to have been given by one Dilip Singh Raghav on behalf of the petitioner to pay the excise dues. Petitioner in para 4 of the memo of writ petition has asserted that no person in the name of Dilip Singh Raghav has either been Director in the petitioner-company or any of its office bearer or any authorised person at any point of time. It is stated that the person referred to above not been authorised by any resolution of the company to extend the said undertaking. In reply to para 4 of the writ petition, the respondents have not contested the said plea and have rather stated that this being a matter of record supported by an affidavit, is not required to be rebutted as the same are based on oath. Even otherwise also, petitioner company is not under legal obligation to make payment of the dues of M/s. Pankaj Forging Ltd. When however, the respondents threatened the petitioner of penal action, the petitioner left with no alternative and succumbing to the illegal pressure and demand, it was coerced to make payment of Rs.7,09,777.00 and Rs.3,26,777.00 through cheques under protest. A copy of the letter dtd. 11/1/2013 has been placed on record at Annexure-11 with which the aforesaid cheques were forwarded to the respondents reserving right of the petitioner to contest the claim of the respondents, which shows that the payment aforesaid was made under protest.