Successor liability for excise dues does not extend to a mere purchaser of land and building without takeover of business.

A subsequent purchaser of only land and building, without acquiring the machinery or taking over the business as a going concern, cannot be fastened with excise dues of the previous owner. Where the transferee is not a successor in business and manufactures different goods from the original defaulter, mere transfer of immovable property is insufficient to extend recovery of prior dues. The commentary notes that section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be applied to recover arrears from multiple later transferees with no connection to the defaulting business.

---

---

Issues: Whether excise dues of a previous owner could be recovered from the respondent, who was only a subsequent purchaser of land and building and not a successor in business.

Analysis: The respondent had purchased only the land and building, not the machinery or the business as a going concern, and was manufacturing different goods from the original defaulter. The recovery was sought from a third successor in respect of a unit that had changed hands multiple times. Mere transfer of land and building was held insufficient to fasten liability for prior excise dues on a later purchaser who had no connection with the defaulter's business. The earlier precedent relied upon supported the view that section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be extended to several generations of transferees in such circumstances.

Conclusion: The respondent was not liable as a successor in business, and recovery of the outstanding dues from it was not permissible.

---