<?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 (11) TMI 317 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267508</link>
    <description>Excise dues of a defaulter unit could not be fastened on a later purchaser who acquired only the assets, because section 11 applies only where the business or trade is transferred as a going concern or ownership changes so that the transferee succeeds to that business. A prolonged and unexplained delay in initiating recovery also rendered the action unsustainable, as statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time. Section 11E did not assist the revenue because the property had already been sold before that provision came into force, so no first charge attached to the petitioner&#039;s title. Refusal of central excise registration was likewise unjustified where the petitioner was the bona fide owner-occupier.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 317 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267508</link>
      <description>Excise dues of a defaulter unit could not be fastened on a later purchaser who acquired only the assets, because section 11 applies only where the business or trade is transferred as a going concern or ownership changes so that the transferee succeeds to that business. A prolonged and unexplained delay in initiating recovery also rendered the action unsustainable, as statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time. Section 11E did not assist the revenue because the property had already been sold before that provision came into force, so no first charge attached to the petitioner&#039;s title. Refusal of central excise registration was likewise unjustified where the petitioner was the bona fide owner-occupier.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>