https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249662 Recovery of a predecessor unit's central excise dues from a purchaser of land, factory, plant and machinery was held impermissible where Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had already been omitted before the purchase and the later proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not yet in force. Section 38A could not revive a lapsed recovery mechanism or fasten liability on a buyer who was not the successor in business of the defaulting unit. The result was that the purchaser could not be burdened with the former owner's dues, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249662 Recovery of a predecessor unit's central excise dues from a purchaser of land, factory, plant and machinery was held impermissible where Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had already been omitted before the purchase and the later proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not yet in force. Section 38A could not revive a lapsed recovery mechanism or fasten liability on a buyer who was not the successor in business of the defaulting unit. The result was that the purchaser could not be burdened with the former owner's dues, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249662