Locus standi in excise disputes depends on succession to the business, not mere purchase of land and building.

A purchaser of only land and building, without taking over the plant, machinery or business undertaking of the former unit, cannot claim locus standi to challenge an order passed against that separate excisable entity. The dispute over outstanding dues of the previous owner remains confined to that assessee and does not confer standing on the purchaser. Refusal of fresh excise registration is a distinct grievance and must be pursued through separate remedies; it does not make a challenge to the earlier order maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants, having purchased only the land and building and not the business undertaking, had locus standi to challenge the order-in-appeal passed against the previous owner, and whether refusal of fresh excise registration entitled them to assail that order.

Analysis: The appellants acquired only the immovable property and were not shown to have purchased the plant and machinery or taken over the business of the former unit. They were neither successors nor transferees of the excisable business, and the dispute concerning the outstanding dues of the previous unit did not confer on them a right to challenge the order passed against that separate entity. Refusal of registration to the appellants was held to be a distinct grievance, for which separate remedies were available, and could not be used to create maintainability in proceedings relating to another assessee.

Conclusion: The appellants had no locus standi to contest the order-in-appeal passed against M/s. Arjunwadkar Engineering Associates Pvt. Ltd., and the appeal was not maintainable.

---