https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345528 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside all proceedings and attachment orders by the Central Excise authorities. It concluded that the purchaser of assets from a defaulter company was not automatically liable for central excise dues unless explicitly specified, emphasizing the distinction between business ownership and asset acquisition. The judgment highlighted that liability arises only when the entire business is acquired, not just the assets. The case was disposed of without costs, affirming that statutory liabilities do not automatically transfer with asset acquisition in the absence of explicit provisions. en-us Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Feb 2018 12:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345528 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside all proceedings and attachment orders by the Central Excise authorities. It concluded that the purchaser of assets from a defaulter company was not automatically liable for central excise dues unless explicitly specified, emphasizing the distinction between business ownership and asset acquisition. The judgment highlighted that liability arises only when the entire business is acquired, not just the assets. The case was disposed of without costs, affirming that statutory liabilities do not automatically transfer with asset acquisition in the absence of explicit provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345528