https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47842 Recovery of a predecessor's excise dues under the proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable because the statutory conditions of succession were not met. The petitioner was only a licensee allotted the plot after GIDC had regained possession, and there was no transfer or disposal of the defaulter's business, trade, or ownership in favour of the petitioner. The Court distinguished Macson Marbles on its facts and statutory context. The impugned demand and recovery notice were therefore unsustainable and were quashed. en-us Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 May 2024 12:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47842 Recovery of a predecessor's excise dues under the proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act was held unavailable because the statutory conditions of succession were not met. The petitioner was only a licensee allotted the plot after GIDC had regained possession, and there was no transfer or disposal of the defaulter's business, trade, or ownership in favour of the petitioner. The Court distinguished Macson Marbles on its facts and statutory context. The impugned demand and recovery notice were therefore unsustainable and were quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47842