https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375932 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the lien marked on their property records by the Central Excise Department. It held that the petitioner, as the subsequent owner, was not liable for the excise dues of the previous owner under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, as there was no evidence of fraudulent transfer or provision holding the successor owner responsible for such dues. The court clarified that the petitioner was not obligated to pay the excise dues of the previous owner and directed them to seek appropriate mutation from revenue authorities. en-us Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Jun 2019 12:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375932 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the lien marked on their property records by the Central Excise Department. It held that the petitioner, as the subsequent owner, was not liable for the excise dues of the previous owner under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, as there was no evidence of fraudulent transfer or provision holding the successor owner responsible for such dues. The court clarified that the petitioner was not obligated to pay the excise dues of the previous owner and directed them to seek appropriate mutation from revenue authorities. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375932