Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.
Shri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, order of confiscation passed again M/s Rathi Ispat Limited (respondent no. 4) may also be brought on record. Shri Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel has appeared for the Bank.
Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for the first time, the petitioner has been informed by letter dated 6th February, 2012 that plant and machinery which were in the custody of M/s Rathi Ispat Ltd. has already been confiscated by the Government of India. The said letter has been brought on record as annexure P-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has leased out the plant and machinery to respondent no. 4 and the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 4 has been referred to Arbitrator and Arbitrator has given an award on 14th March, 2012, a copy whereof has been brought on record as annexure P-20. He submits that under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the confiscation of the property belonging to manufacturer, producer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer is permissible. The property of lessor i.e. petitioner could not have been confiscated. Confiscation was made in the year 2007 of the plant and machinery of the respondent no. 4.
List on 11th July, 2012.
Till then, further proceedings in pursuance of confiscation order, if any, may go on. However, the plant and machinery leased by the petitioner to respondent no. 4 shall not be alienated, if not already alienated.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by the next date.
(Prakash Krishna,J) (Ashok Bhushan,J) Order Date :- 29.5.2012 MK/