Auction purchasers not liable for central excise dues under SARFAESI Act

The High Court held that the auction purchasers of assets under the SARFAESI Act were not liable for the central excise dues of the defaulting company, as they did not acquire the entire business. The Court found that the Central Excise Department's notices restricting disposal of assets were unlawful, allowing the Department to recover dues by taking possession of finished goods. The judgment emphasized compliance with Supreme Court rulings on successor liability for central excise dues, clarifying the obligations of auction purchasers in such cases. The writ petitions were allowed, with no costs imposed, and pending miscellaneous petitions were disposed of.

---

---

Issues:
Jurisdiction invoked over notice questioning plant and machinery disposal without order from Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise; Transfer of assets under SARFAESI Act auction; Liability for central excise dues on auction purchaser; Interpretation of proviso to Section 11 of Central Excise Act; Application of Supreme Court judgments on successor liability; Attachment of movable assets under proviso to Section 11; Central Excise Department's failure to take possession of finished goods; Legality of notices on auction purchaser and subsequent buyer; Compliance with Supreme Court rulings on liability for central excise dues.

Jurisdiction Invoked Over Notice:
The High Court's jurisdiction was invoked to challenge a notice preventing the disposal of plant and machinery without the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise's written order. The petitioners had acquired assets through auction under the SARFAESI Act, leading to the detention of the plant and machinery during transportation to Maharashtra.

Transfer of Assets Under SARFAESI Act Auction:
Assets of defaulting companies were auctioned by Exim Bank, with a partnership firm purchasing the assets and subsequently selling the plant and machinery to another company. The petitioners argued that the central excise liability of the defaulting company did not transfer to them, as the sale had occurred two years before the attachment order.

Liability for Central Excise Dues:
The Central Excise Department contended that the auction purchaser was liable for central excise dues of the defaulting company based on a Supreme Court ruling. The Department argued that the property was transferred subject to such dues, holding the auction purchaser responsible for payment.

Interpretation of Proviso to Section 11:
The proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act was analyzed to determine the attachment and sale of assets in case of business transfer or ownership change. The Court found that the proviso was not applicable as the business had not been transferred, and the auction purchaser held title over the assets.

Application of Supreme Court Judgments:
Counsel cited Supreme Court judgments on successor liability for central excise dues, emphasizing that liability only extended to buyers of entire businesses. The Court clarified that the auction purchasers were not liable for the defaulting company's central excise dues as they did not acquire the entire business.

Attachment of Movable Assets:
The Court explained that the Central Excise Department could not attach the movable assets post-sale, as the auction purchasers had obtained title through a sale certificate. The proviso to Section 11 did not apply, as the assets were no longer owned by the defaulting company.

Central Excise Department's Failure:
Despite requirements in the auction notice to address central excise dues, the Central Excise Department had failed to take possession of finished goods, leading to correspondence indicating the auction purchaser's willingness to cooperate in removing the goods from the premises.

Legality of Notices:
The Court deemed the notices restricting the disposal of plant and machinery as unlawful, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court. The proceedings were set aside, allowing the Central Excise Department to recover dues by taking possession of finished goods from the premises.

Compliance with Supreme Court Rulings:
The judgment ensured compliance with Supreme Court rulings on successor liability for central excise dues, clarifying that auction purchasers were not automatically liable for the defaulting company's obligations. The writ petitions were allowed, with no costs imposed, and pending miscellaneous petitions were disposed of.

---