Excise recovery cannot attach to auctioned liquidation assets where only company property, not the business itself, is sold.

Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held to apply only where a liable person transfers or disposes of a business or trade so that another person succeeds to it; a court-sanctioned sale of a company's assets in liquidation did not amount to such a transfer. The auction concerned land, building, plant and machinery sold through company court proceedings, with sale proceeds available for distribution under the Companies Act, 1956. Because the sale was bona fide and not shown to involve fraud or collusion, the proviso could not be used to fasten the company's excise dues on the auction purchasers. The department's remedy lay against the liquidation estate, not the purchased assets.

---

---

Issues: Whether the auction sale of the company's assets, sanctioned by the Company Court, was subject to the proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and whether the Excise Department could pursue the property in the hands of the auction purchasers for the balance of the company's excise dues.

Analysis: Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits recovery of outstanding dues and its proviso applies where the person liable transfers or disposes of a business or trade, in whole or in part, or brings about a change in ownership so that another person succeeds in that business or trade. The sale in question was a judicial sale of land, building, plant and machinery of the company in liquidation, with the sale proceeds available for distribution among creditors under the Companies Act, 1956. The record did not show transfer of the business or trade itself, only sale of assets. A bona fide court-sanctioned sale that is not tainted by fraud or collusion carries a clear title, and the proviso cannot be stretched to fasten the company's excise liability on the purchaser of assets. The earlier precedent on recovery from a successor did not govern a case where the entire sale consideration was available through liquidation proceedings.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted, and the auction purchasers were not liable to satisfy the company's excise dues from the purchased property.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the court protected the auction sale from excise recovery proceedings against the purchased assets, while leaving the department to pursue its claim before the Official Liquidator in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies only to a transfer or disposal of business or trade resulting in succession, not to a bona fide court-sanctioned sale of assets alone.

---