https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43421 A revenue recovery demand notice against a state financial corporation was found unsustainable because it wrongly treated the corporation itself as the defaulter for excise dues attributable to the industrial unit. Although Section 29(5) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was noted for the limited proposition that the corporation may be deemed owner of the concern, the notice on its face exposed all corporate assets to recovery on an incorrect basis. The wider question of general liability was left undecided, but the erroneous identification of the defaulter rendered the notice illegal and liable to be quashed. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:56:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43421 A revenue recovery demand notice against a state financial corporation was found unsustainable because it wrongly treated the corporation itself as the defaulter for excise dues attributable to the industrial unit. Although Section 29(5) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was noted for the limited proposition that the corporation may be deemed owner of the concern, the notice on its face exposed all corporate assets to recovery on an incorrect basis. The wider question of general liability was left undecided, but the erroneous identification of the defaulter rendered the notice illegal and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43421