https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773464 An auction purchaser of land, plant and machinery was not liable for the predecessor unit's central excise dues where the auction conveyed only assets and not the business itself, and no statutory provision in force during the relevant period fastened prior liability on such a transfer. The court distinguished the revenue's reliance on an earlier Supreme Court ruling on the ground that it concerned a different period and did not address the absence of an enabling provision. On that basis, the demand for predecessor excise dues could not stand, and rejection of the refund claim for amounts deposited under protest was unjustified; refund with interest followed. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 08:25:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773464 An auction purchaser of land, plant and machinery was not liable for the predecessor unit's central excise dues where the auction conveyed only assets and not the business itself, and no statutory provision in force during the relevant period fastened prior liability on such a transfer. The court distinguished the revenue's reliance on an earlier Supreme Court ruling on the ground that it concerned a different period and did not address the absence of an enabling provision. On that basis, the demand for predecessor excise dues could not stand, and rejection of the refund claim for amounts deposited under protest was unjustified; refund with interest followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773464