Successor liability in customs recovery depends on the statute in force; transfer of a unit alone does not make the buyer liable.

Section 142(1)(c)(ii) permits recovery only from movable or immovable property belonging to, or under the control of, the person from whom dues are recoverable, and the later proviso allowing recovery from property in a successor's hands applies only if it was in force during the relevant period. The authorities erred by treating the transferee as liable merely because the unit had been transferred, without testing the matter against the applicable statutory position. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether dues could be recovered from property purchased by the appellant from the predecessor unit under Section 142(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, as made applicable to central excise matters, and whether the authorities had correctly applied the proviso enabling recovery from property in the hands of a successor.

Analysis: The recovery provision in Section 142(1)(c)(ii) permits enforcement against movable or immovable property belonging to or under the control of the person from whom dues are to be recovered. The proviso authorising recovery even where the property is in the hands of a succeeding purchaser was introduced only later and was not on the statute book during the relevant period. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine the dispute on that basis and proceeded on the assumption that the successor was liable merely because the unit had been transferred.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in the light of the applicable statutory position. The issue was answered in favour of the appellant to that extent.

---