2025 (6) TMI 1577 - HC - Central Excise

Excise duty refund granted as no statutory provision existed for transferring predecessor's liability during 2001-2004 gap period

Swan Marbles and Granite (A Unit of Swan Industries Ltd.) Versus Union of India, The Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Udaipur, The Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Udaipur.

The HC ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding refund of excise duty paid under protest. The court held that between July 1, 2001 to April 1, 2004, no ... Rejection of refund claim of amount paid under protest - transfer of previous liability - liability for excise dues outstanding against a predecessor unit can be transferred to and demanded from the purchaser of immovable property with plant and machinery acquired through auction or not - whether the respondents were justified in demanding the liability of the predecessor of petitioner in terms of Rule 230(2) of the Rules of 1944 or proviso to Section 11 of the Act of 1944 or not? - HELD THAT:- This question does not require much deliberation in the present writ petition in view of the decision passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rishabhdeo Tex Print [2005 (11) TMI 546 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]. The issue with regard to transfer of previous liability in the intervening period i.e. from 01.07.2001 to 01.04.2004 was under consideration in the said judgment. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para 26 have considered the exactly identical issue where it was held that 'position becomes clear that between 1st of July 2001 to 1st of April 2004 there was no provision akin to Rule 230 or proviso to Section 11 of the Act on the Statute Book. Hence, as on the date of transfer of the assets took place in May 2003, no corresponding liability followed the transfer of assets in the hands of buyer to clear the dues of previous owner which had not been paid under the Central Excise Act and the provisions of S.F.C. Act took full effect whenever such assets have vested in buyer free from all encumbrance.' In the present case, the offer of the petitioner was accepted by RIICO on 24.08.2001 and conveyance deed was executed on 24.09.2001. In view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rishabhdeo Tex Print, submissions made by petitioner appears to be justified while contending that since there was no provision for shifting liability of the predecessor in the intervening period and, therefore, no demand could have been raised for the said period and department was not at all justified in denying the refund of the claim deposited by the petitioner under protest. The contention of the petitioner that it has purchased immovable property with assets and liability and not the business. The advertisement issued by the RIICO nowhere indicates that they are proposing to auction the business of M/s HMG Granite Pvt. Ltd. The details as provided in the advertisement only speaks of the land and the plant and machinery attached to it. In view of the condition mentioned in the advertisement, the contention as raised by the respondents with regard to the transfer of business cannot be accepted. Counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that it was the auction only for land with attached plant and machinery. The respondent No.3, therefore, was not at all justified in fastening the liability on the petitioner by treating it to be a transfer of business. Conclusion - i) The respondents were not justified in demanding predecessor's excise duty liability from the petitioner for the period 01.07.2001 to 01.04.2004; ii) The petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount deposited under protest. The impugned order is set aside - petition allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:(a) Whether the liability for excise dues outstanding against a predecessor unit can be transferred to and demanded from the purchaser of immovable property with plant and machinery acquired through auction, in the absence of explicit statutory provisions during the relevant period;(b) Whether Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were applicable to transfer liability for the period from 01.07.2001 to 01.04.2004;(c) Whether the purchaser, having acquired only immovable property with attached plant and machinery and not the business itself, can be held liable for the predecessor's excise dues;(d) Whether the refund claim of the petitioner for the amount deposited under protest should be allowed, given the above considerations.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) & (b): Transferability of Predecessor's Excise Liability and Applicability of Rule 230(2) and Section 11 Proviso During 01.07.2001 to 01.04.2004The legal framework centers on Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Section 11 and Rule 230(2) provide mechanisms whereby liability for excise duty may be transferred to a successor purchaser of a business or undertaking, making the purchaser responsible for dues outstanding against the predecessor.The respondents relied heavily on the Supreme Court decision in Macson Marble Pvt. Ltd., which upheld the principle that excise liability can be transferred to a subsequent buyer under Rule 230(2). However, the Court noted that the facts in Macson Marble were distinct, as the possession and demand arose in 1987, a period when the statutory provisions for transfer of liability were in place.The petitioner contended that during the period from 01.07.2001 to 01.04.2004, no statutory provisions akin to Rule 230(2) or the proviso to Section 11 existed, thereby negating any legal basis for transferring predecessor liability to the purchaser. This contention was supported by a prior coordinate bench decision in Rishabhdeo Tex Print Pvt. Ltd., which held that between these dates, the absence of such provisions meant that no liability transferred with the assets.The Court reproduced paragraph 26 of the Rishabhdeo Tex Print judgment, emphasizing that no liability followed the transfer of assets in that period, and that assets vested in the buyer free from encumbrances.Applying this precedent, the Court interpreted that since the petitioner's purchase and conveyance deed execution occurred in August and September 2001 respectively, within the said period, the statutory provisions for transferring liability were not in force. Therefore, the respondents were not justified in demanding the predecessor's liability from the petitioner under the excise laws.The Court also distinguished the Macson Marble decision on factual grounds, noting that the issue of absence of statutory provisions during the specific period was not before the Supreme Court in that case.Issue (c): Nature of Purchase - Whether Business Was TransferredThe petitioner argued that the auction was limited to immovable property with attached plant and machinery and did not include the business of the predecessor unit. The advertisement for auction explicitly described the sale as 'as is where is' for industrial plots with plant and machinery, without any mention of transfer of business or liabilities.The respondents contended that the business was also transferred, thereby justifying the demand of predecessor liability.The Court examined the advertisement and found no indication that the business was included in the auction. The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that only immovable property and plant and machinery were sold, and the business was not transferred. Consequently, the Court held that the liability for excise dues could not be fastened on the petitioner on the basis of transfer of business.Issue (d): Entitlement to Refund of Amount Deposited Under ProtestGiven the above determinations that the petitioner was not liable for the predecessor's excise dues during the relevant period and that the business was not transferred, the Court analyzed the validity of rejection of the refund claim.The petitioner had deposited Rs. 3,10,375/- under protest to secure registration under the Excise Rules, as the department insisted on clearing the outstanding dues of the predecessor unit. The refund claim was subsequently rejected by the Deputy Commissioner.The Court found the rejection unjustified in light of the absence of statutory liability transfer and the nature of the purchase. It directed that the refund claim be allowed and ordered the department to process the refund within three months, including interest at 6% per annum.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court's crucial legal reasoning is encapsulated in the following verbatim excerpt from the Rishabhdeo Tex Print judgment, which the Court adopted:'Therefore, position becomes clear that between 1st of July 2001 to 1st of April 2004 there was no provision akin to Rule 230 or proviso to Section 11 of the Act on the Statute Book. Hence, as on the date of transfer of the assets took place in May 2003, no corresponding liability followed the transfer of assets in the hands of buyer to clear the dues of previous owner which had not been paid under the Central Excise Act and the provisions of S.F.C. Act took full effect whenever such assets have vested in buyer free from all encumbrance.'The Court established the core principle that statutory provisions governing transfer of excise duty liability to a purchaser must be explicitly in force at the time of transfer to impose such liability. Absence of such provisions during the relevant period means no liability can be transferred.Further, the Court held that acquisition of immovable property with plant and machinery does not automatically entail transfer of business or excise liability unless specifically stipulated.Accordingly, the Court concluded:(a) The respondents were not justified in demanding predecessor's excise duty liability from the petitioner for the period 01.07.2001 to 01.04.2004;(b) The petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount deposited under protest;(c) The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was quashed and set aside;(d) The refund claim was to be processed with interest at 6% per annum within three months.