Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether excise dues of the previous owner could be recovered from a bona fide purchaser who acquired the unit from a secured creditor through sale free from encumbrances.
Analysis: Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held to authorise detention of excisable goods and related assets for recovery of duty, but not to create a charge over the property. The distinction between detention and charge was emphasised, and Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act was referred to for the nature of a charge. Since the purchaser had acquired only the property, not the business, and had no notice of the arrears, the claim of the secured creditor prevailed over the unsecured excise demand. The absence of any statutory first charge or equivalent provision under the excise law meant that crown debt could not override the secured debt in these facts.
Conclusion: The excise department could not recover the previous owner's dues from the bona fide purchaser, and the demand notices were unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory charge or first charge under the excise law, arrears of excise duty cannot be enforced against a bona fide purchaser who acquires property free from encumbrances from a secured creditor.