https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218463 An auction purchaser of an industrial unit was treated as bound by a contractual stipulation to bear statutory liabilities arising out of the land, building, plant and machinery, so the purchaser could be proceeded against for the predecessor's unpaid central excise duty. The recovery provisions under Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were described as machinery provisions enabling recovery from transferred assets. Penalty liability was distinguished as a separate quasi-criminal consequence imposed after adjudication, and was not covered by the purchaser's undertaking; the purchaser was therefore not liable for the predecessor's penalties. en-us Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218463 An auction purchaser of an industrial unit was treated as bound by a contractual stipulation to bear statutory liabilities arising out of the land, building, plant and machinery, so the purchaser could be proceeded against for the predecessor's unpaid central excise duty. The recovery provisions under Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were described as machinery provisions enabling recovery from transferred assets. Penalty liability was distinguished as a separate quasi-criminal consequence imposed after adjudication, and was not covered by the purchaser's undertaking; the purchaser was therefore not liable for the predecessor's penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218463