Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court grants relief to petitioners for Central Excise Registration, protects rights acquired from secured creditor

        JAHAAN STEEL LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA & 3

        JAHAAN STEEL LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA & 3 - 2014 (311) E.L.T. 11 (Guj.) Issues Involved:
        1. Refusal to grant Central Excise Registration due to outstanding dues of the previous owner.
        2. Applicability of Section 11 and Section 11E of the Central Excise Act.
        3. Whether the petitioner is a successor of the previous owner under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act.
        4. Validity of the Central Excise Authorities' demand for indemnity bond.
        5. Whether two parties can hold Central Excise Registration for the same premises.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Refusal to grant Central Excise Registration due to outstanding dues of the previous owner:
        The petitioners, engaged in the manufacture of steel products, purchased the subject property from the Gujarat State Financial Corporation (GSFC) through a public tender. They applied for Central Excise Registration, which was denied by the authorities due to the outstanding dues of the previous owner, M/s. Shri Pramukh Industries Private Limited. The authorities insisted on the payment of these dues or the provision of an indemnity bond as a precondition for granting registration.

        2. Applicability of Section 11 and Section 11E of the Central Excise Act:
        The respondents argued that under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, the petitioners, as successors, are liable for the dues of the previous owner. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. SICOM Ltd., which held that a secured debt prevails over Crown debt. Since GSFC, a secured creditor, had sold the property to the petitioners, the Central Excise Authorities could not claim the outstanding dues from the petitioners. Additionally, Section 11E, which provides for the first charge of Central Excise dues, was not applicable retrospectively to affect rights acquired before its enactment in 2011.

        3. Whether the petitioner is a successor of the previous owner under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act:
        The respondents claimed that the petitioners should be considered successors of M/s. Shri Pramukh Industries Private Limited. However, the court found that the petitioners had purchased the property from GSFC, a secured creditor, and not directly from the previous owner. Therefore, the petitioners could not be held liable for the dues of the previous owner under Section 11 of the Act.

        4. Validity of the Central Excise Authorities' demand for indemnity bond:
        The Central Excise Authorities demanded an indemnity bond from the petitioners for the outstanding dues of the previous owner. The court held that such a demand was unjustified, as the petitioners were not liable for the dues of the previous owner. The authorities' insistence on the indemnity bond as a precondition for registration was deemed improper.

        5. Whether two parties can hold Central Excise Registration for the same premises:
        The respondents argued that Central Excise Registration could not be granted to the petitioners because the registration of the previous owner had not been canceled. The court referred to its decision in Surat Metallics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, which held that the failure of the previous owner to apply for de-registration should not prevent the new owner from obtaining registration. The court concluded that the Central Excise Authorities were not justified in refusing registration on this ground.

        Conclusion:
        The court allowed the petitions, directing the Central Excise Authorities to grant regular Central Excise Registration Licenses to the petitioners without insisting on the payment of the outstanding dues of the previous owner, M/s. Shri Pramukh Industries Private Limited. The court emphasized that the rights of the petitioners, acquired through the purchase from GSFC, a secured creditor, could not be affected by the retrospective application of Section 11E of the Central Excise Act. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found