ENFORCEMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 June 2011
This query is : Resolved
ONE OF MY CLIENT OWNER OF THE PREMISES GIVEN A GODOWN ON RENT TO A CIGARET MANUFACTURER FOR MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 12,000/-
UNFORTUNATELY RENT AGREEMENT WAS PREPARED BUT IT WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE TENANT HE ORALLY COMMITTED TO SIGN THE RENT AGREEMENT WITH 2-3 DAYS AND HE KEPT RAW MATERIAL OF CIGARATE MANUFACTURING AT THE GODOWN.
SUDDENLY TEAM OF EXCISE DEPTT VISITED THE GODOWN AND SEALED THE GODOWN. TENANT WAS NOT AVAILABLE THERE.
OWNER OF THE PREMISES WAS ALSO THERE HE HAD TO TAKE THE SUPERDARI OF THE SAME AFTER RELEASING THE SEAL OF THE GODOWN.
NEIGHER TENANT IS COMING AT THE PREMISES NOR HE IS PAYING THE RENT.
KINDLY SUGGEST WHAT MY CLIENT SHOULD DO TO GET RID OF THIS PROBLEM.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 09 June 2011
If the godown purpotedly given on rent was sealed with raw material inside it, then what was the need for the owner to take the goods (which obviously does not belong to him) on superdari?
C M Sharma
(Expert) 09 June 2011
A Notice to Commissioner of Central Excise of concerned jurisdiction could be issued
with
another Notice to the owner of the goods,
for payment of agreed rent for storage of the goods.
Seized goods are the property of the Government.
Enclosing the Seizure Memo and superatnama, it may also be informed to Commissioner Central Excise that the goods being cigarettes being perishable in nature be sold in accordance with the laid down procedure for perishable goods, with out further delay.
If still the goods are not disposed off, the matter may be reported to
The Chief Commissioner of Zone supervising over the concerned Commissioner
and
Member (Central Excise), CBEC, New Delhi,
informing of the loss of revenue involved due continued detention of perishable goods.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 09 June 2011
Dear Mr.Sharma
I have certain points to ask you.
1. When the goods do not belong to the owner of the premises, why should he bother whether the goods are perishable in nature or not?
2. According to me, the owner should first give a police complaint stating that so and so came and approached him for renting of the godown; that he agreed to give the godown on such and such rent from ...; the written agreement was to be executed in due course but could not be done so far; in the meanwhile based on the oral agreement to rent the premises, so and so came and placed the goods in question in the godown on such and such date. Now, the said person is not coming forward and owning up his actions / goods, which stand seized and sealed by the Central Excise Authorities.
3. Based on such a complaint to the Police, the owner can write to the Central Excise Authorities stating that he has nothing to do with the goods, and he only agreed to provide the premises on rent basis, and the authorities may take appropriate action on the party who rented the premises and who stored the goods in the said premises.
Needless to say, the Central Excise Authorities would definitely initiate proceedings (Show Cause Notice) to the owner of the premises and he has to answer the SCN.
a.manoharan
(Expert) 11 June 2011
I also do agree with Ramachandran
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 11 June 2011
Mr. C M Sharma's advise is in the light of the fact that land lord of premises rightly or wrongly became the custodian of the confiscated goods,and that is a valuable advise.What was desired on part of landlord is not of much importance now,land lord has become custodian,though he was at choice to be or not to be ,but he has already become,hence he is holding confiscated goods now on behalf of excise department of govt.
he is now under a legal duty to take care of goods as custodian.
I agree with Mr. sharma.
Mr.R.Ramachandran is,however correct that land lord has acted foolishly in becoming supurdgar of goods .
