https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462439 An auction purchaser of only the assets of an industrial unit could not be saddled with the predecessor's excise dues where, on the date of transfer, no statutory provision then in force created successor liability. The later proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act did not apply retrospectively to a May 2003 transfer, and the repealed Rule 230(2) could not govern the transaction. Recovery provisions dealing with transfer of business or change in ownership also did not apply because the sale was confined to land, building and plant, not a transfer of the business as a going concern. The demand and recovery notices were therefore unsustainable. en-us Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:30:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462439 An auction purchaser of only the assets of an industrial unit could not be saddled with the predecessor's excise dues where, on the date of transfer, no statutory provision then in force created successor liability. The later proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act did not apply retrospectively to a May 2003 transfer, and the repealed Rule 230(2) could not govern the transaction. Recovery provisions dealing with transfer of business or change in ownership also did not apply because the sale was confined to land, building and plant, not a transfer of the business as a going concern. The demand and recovery notices were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462439