<?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>2009 (3) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32679</link>
    <description>Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held to apply only where a liable person transfers or disposes of a business or trade so that another person succeeds to it; a court-sanctioned sale of a company&#039;s assets in liquidation did not amount to such a transfer. The auction concerned land, building, plant and machinery sold through company court proceedings, with sale proceeds available for distribution under the Companies Act, 1956. Because the sale was bona fide and not shown to involve fraud or collusion, the proviso could not be used to fasten the company&#039;s excise dues on the auction purchasers. The department&#039;s remedy lay against the liquidation estate, not the purchased assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32679</link>
      <description>Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held to apply only where a liable person transfers or disposes of a business or trade so that another person succeeds to it; a court-sanctioned sale of a company&#039;s assets in liquidation did not amount to such a transfer. The auction concerned land, building, plant and machinery sold through company court proceedings, with sale proceeds available for distribution under the Companies Act, 1956. Because the sale was bona fide and not shown to involve fraud or collusion, the proviso could not be used to fasten the company&#039;s excise dues on the auction purchasers. The department&#039;s remedy lay against the liquidation estate, not the purchased assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>