<?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>2016 (8) TMI 291 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330907</link>
    <description>Where a business is transferred as a going concern with assets, goodwill, licences, registrations and liabilities, excise dues of the predecessor may be recovered from the successor under the statutory recovery provision. On the facts, the transfer documents did not exclude excise liability and the earlier registrations and licences stood transferred to the successor, so recovery against the successor was upheld. The cited contrary precedent was distinguished because it involved a separate independent registration. The demand was also held to be within limitation in the context of clandestine removal, and the recovery order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 291 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330907</link>
      <description>Where a business is transferred as a going concern with assets, goodwill, licences, registrations and liabilities, excise dues of the predecessor may be recovered from the successor under the statutory recovery provision. On the facts, the transfer documents did not exclude excise liability and the earlier registrations and licences stood transferred to the successor, so recovery against the successor was upheld. The cited contrary precedent was distinguished because it involved a separate independent registration. The demand was also held to be within limitation in the context of clandestine removal, and the recovery order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>