High Court Karnataka High Court

The Assistant Commissioner Of vs The Karnataka State Industrial … on 11 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Assistant Commissioner Of vs The Karnataka State Industrial … on 11 December, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
IN THE man scum' or KARNATAKA cIRc:;i';*"3w$'g§é.:fi  %

AT' BHARWAD.

Dated this the 1 rah day of,Dec¢mm{'2 93:3    

BEFORE} ' _
THE HON'3L}3 nuR. 5J"zIzsTxVéE    
Wm Petition No. 99$?-gf 2.908  
Between: A    A.

The Assistant Commissiqncfif cf  A  
Central Excise .&-;Ct1_S{OI I1S :   ~
Hubli I 5 t '-- ' " ... Pstitiencr

    }%k:iv0cate)
Am: %  ' " 

1 The Ka;mataka.:VSta't::_ Iitriftistxiai
Inveéfmeni and 'I)€s:¢j}:sp1nent
Corporaticn Lmlitsd 

 Represented by its Managar
._  ..Oificé Nu-3," Enkay Complex
A _ ' Késhavapur
" ~ .HubH 5-»$s*@ 023

2 .2 '"*M/s Rsjfydt Tcxtilses &« Gil
._ ?I'1'_*.?af,g.-Limiteci
Ifiiuhli Road
 I~li;,I1{oti - 582 205 .
" * 4_ Reprtisenteti by Gfimzrai Manager

.'     s. Basant Textiles Traéars

No.7, Pandit Niwas, 15' Floor
Opp to 'D' Silva High School
SK. 801:: Road

Dacia: (W) L .-



Mumbai --- 430 028
Representtzd by  --   M  [
Managing Director ..._R_<:g3_pc§n€i§é11.ts "

This Writ: Petifion is filed under fimicles    

to consider the r'ep:'esentatio1mL» timed E5=9--20{}=3,  'Z3~12--2OC¥3,
14*?-2004, 2&9-2094, 12~5-{Z005-,_V1"¥~.j9~2{)f)6,§vI8--93~2{}{}6 and
20-9--206 at Annexurgsfii, J,,.:ttc;:'a.t'4i;  cheese, cone and yarn in plain reel falling

 tfié heading 52.05 Centrai Excise Tariff, Act 1985,

 [.'Pr%;V{ceu&ings ware inifiatezi against the second respondent for

V’:j’_”Vr;o-firpayment of duty uncier gubaruie 2(a) of R1116 STAG with

” ~~ r’egarci ta {Em capital goods and Rule 57AD of Central Excise;

Ly”

5. I do not find any merit in the sai’ti”‘c%_i:s:t_:e__i1£:ég3it:,

The amounts which are legally due to {£223

recoverable from the assets of the $fnCCOIi’_{i’ £T8§}3(iZ1.d’€.Z1f~.(SC)}1Zl}?§-“1.?fLty

irrespective of the fact that who is 3:: gjossessiii-11. (ifthég same’;

and in what right they are i11’f3z§V.é’ss:ssio1£.~._’f’Ir:¢Se ‘dues would
prevail over other du«~3is..V_& T115′ ha§’AAaifln.pEe power
under the Central Excise’ t§j’vfE:{§ot_%c:_f”t;i;é:b’_Said amounts and

it is not helpie_ss»«.

6. ifef tkié» II:7iv»’sii”L:’tf.”A”‘}2′”‘,””a’r’-‘v’.i£€’:j£i3. the petitimizer has
alternative : ‘r;::me dyV,v for this Court :10
enttirtajn t11is«ix.>1jf pg£i:_f{{$:V§., ” }gc;:oraingzy it is dismissed,
tfggcruinrgélibtsyiy gqfificner to recover the tax fines

a
Judge