<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (9) TMI 576 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263908</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable for the outstanding Central Excise dues of the predecessor company. The appellant&#039;s argument that they did not succeed the business of the predecessor company was accepted. The Tribunal found that the assets were acquired through a series of transactions and not directly from the predecessor company, thus the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act did not apply. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant&#039;s undertaking to pay arrears did not override their legal rights. Consequently, the demand for payment of dues from the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 576 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263908</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable for the outstanding Central Excise dues of the predecessor company. The appellant&#039;s argument that they did not succeed the business of the predecessor company was accepted. The Tribunal found that the assets were acquired through a series of transactions and not directly from the predecessor company, thus the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act did not apply. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant&#039;s undertaking to pay arrears did not override their legal rights. Consequently, the demand for payment of dues from the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>