TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate tribunal grants refund to auction-purchasers under Central Excise Act</h1> <h3>SHRI KESAV CEMENTS & INFRA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BALGAUM</h3> SHRI KESAV CEMENTS & INFRA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BALGAUM - 2010 (256) E.L.T. 585 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:Claim of refund under Central Excise Act, 1944; Interpretation of Section 11 regarding recovery of arrears from successor owner.Analysis:The appeal challenged the denial of a refund of Rs. 5,13,852/- by the lower authorities, which was paid by the appellant before registration under the Central Excise Act. The case involved the purchase of a cement plant in an auction from a company with unpaid loans. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim, citing Section 11 of the Act, stating that arrears owed by the original owner could be recovered from the appellant as the successor owner. The appellant contested this, relying on legal precedents such as the T.C. Spinners Pvt. Ltd. case and the New Tobacco Company Ltd. case.During the hearing, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants were not entitled to the refund based on Section 11 of the Act. The Commissioner relied on the provision that allows recovery from the successor if there was a transfer or change in ownership by the predecessor. However, the appellate tribunal found that in this case, there was no such transfer as required by the provision. The tribunal also noted that previous judgments supported the appellant's position, such as the New Tobacco Company Ltd. case where liabilities were not transferred in a lease scenario, and the T.C. Spinners Pvt. Ltd. case where the court held that dues could not be enforced against purchased property.The tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment regarding auction-purchasers not being liable for previous owner's dues. Following the legal principles established in these cases, the tribunal held that the appellants were not liable to pay the dues owed by the original owner and were entitled to the refund of the arrears. The appeal was allowed, granting the appellants consequential relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
