https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253383 Recovery of excise dues against subsequent purchasers was quashed because, even where no limitation period is prescribed, recovery powers must be exercised within a reasonable time; a delay of about 10 years was treated as unreasonable and hit by laches. Refusal to grant fresh central excise registration to a bona fide subsequent lessee was also set aside because registration is person-specific, and the mere subsistence of the earlier registrant's certificate, without surrender or cancellation, cannot by itself justify denial where no statutory embargo exists. The petition therefore succeeded on both challenges, with relief granted to the transferee and lessee. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253383 Recovery of excise dues against subsequent purchasers was quashed because, even where no limitation period is prescribed, recovery powers must be exercised within a reasonable time; a delay of about 10 years was treated as unreasonable and hit by laches. Refusal to grant fresh central excise registration to a bona fide subsequent lessee was also set aside because registration is person-specific, and the mere subsistence of the earlier registrant's certificate, without surrender or cancellation, cannot by itself justify denial where no statutory embargo exists. The petition therefore succeeded on both challenges, with relief granted to the transferee and lessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253383