<?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>2011 (12) TMI 687 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197178</link>
    <description>Excise recovery can extend to a purchaser who acquires a predecessor&#039;s assets through auction where the statutory scheme permits proceeding against successor-held assets after transfer or change in ownership. Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended, and Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules were treated as recovery provisions allowing enforcement against the assets in the successor&#039;s hands. An auction conducted by a secured creditor did not, by itself, exclude central excise dues because the auction terms did not expressly bar such liability. The recovery notices were upheld and the purchaser was held liable for the predecessor&#039;s excise dues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 687 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197178</link>
      <description>Excise recovery can extend to a purchaser who acquires a predecessor&#039;s assets through auction where the statutory scheme permits proceeding against successor-held assets after transfer or change in ownership. Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended, and Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules were treated as recovery provisions allowing enforcement against the assets in the successor&#039;s hands. An auction conducted by a secured creditor did not, by itself, exclude central excise dues because the auction terms did not expressly bar such liability. The recovery notices were upheld and the purchaser was held liable for the predecessor&#039;s excise dues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>