https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45039 A secured creditor under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 had priority over Central Excise dues where the property was already mortgaged and sold in exercise of Section 29 powers. The HC applied the overriding effect of Section 46B and the settled distinction between secured and unsecured debts, holding that excise duty is not a secured debt and that no excise charge existed over the land, plant or machinery. Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not defeat the prior rights created by the mortgage and sale under the special statute, so the demand notice and detention order were unsustainable. en-us Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:30:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45039 A secured creditor under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 had priority over Central Excise dues where the property was already mortgaged and sold in exercise of Section 29 powers. The HC applied the overriding effect of Section 46B and the settled distinction between secured and unsecured debts, holding that excise duty is not a secured debt and that no excise charge existed over the land, plant or machinery. Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not defeat the prior rights created by the mortgage and sale under the special statute, so the demand notice and detention order were unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45039