<?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>2008 (2) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3082</link>
    <description>Registration under the Central Excise regime could not be refused to a bona fide purchaser of industrial assets merely because the transferor&#039;s registration remained uncancelled, since registration turns on the person carrying on the taxable activity and the provisions did not authorise denial on that basis. Customs and excise dues of the erstwhile owner did not, without an express statutory first charge, override secured creditors&#039; claims or attach to a purchaser acquiring assets through a SARFAESI sale free from encumbrances. Mere purchase of assets also did not establish succession to the former business, so the purchaser was not liable for the predecessor&#039;s dues on that footing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3082</link>
      <description>Registration under the Central Excise regime could not be refused to a bona fide purchaser of industrial assets merely because the transferor&#039;s registration remained uncancelled, since registration turns on the person carrying on the taxable activity and the provisions did not authorise denial on that basis. Customs and excise dues of the erstwhile owner did not, without an express statutory first charge, override secured creditors&#039; claims or attach to a purchaser acquiring assets through a SARFAESI sale free from encumbrances. Mere purchase of assets also did not establish succession to the former business, so the purchaser was not liable for the predecessor&#039;s dues on that footing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>