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 the Central Excise Department could recover excise duty dues from an auction purchaser of only the land and property, and whether the purchaser became liable under section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or its proviso.
Analysis: The petitioner's purchase was of the property in auction conducted in recovery proceedings, not of the borrower's business as a going concern. The distinction between purchase of mere assets and succession to business or trade was decisive. A secured creditor's claim prevails over unsecured crown debt, and excise dues cannot be fastened on a purchaser who has not succeeded to the business of the defaulting assessee. The proviso to section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies only where business or trade, in whole or in part, is transferred or disposed of, and not where only land or other assets are sold. The later insertion of section 11E did not govern the period in question.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not liable for the excise dues of the erstwhile owner, and the departmental notices seeking recovery from the petitioner could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: An auction purchaser of only the assets of a defaulting concern is not liable for the concern's excise dues unless the purchase amounts to succession to the business or trade, or a specific statutory first charge exists.