TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y assets that would attract Central Excise Duty?" 3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, matter is also finally heard. 4. Facts in brief of the present appeal may be recapitulated first. 5. M/s. Aryavart Plywood Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwadi was the original owner of two plots of land bearing Nos. SP 144A & 144B located in Industrial Estate, Bhiwadi aggregating to 66400 Sq. Meters. There were certain dues payable by the said company to the Excise Department which were adjudicated upon way back in the year 1985. It seems that the original owner - owned certain amounts to the financial institutions as a result of which the aforesaid plots of land alongwith machinery etc. and business was taken over by the said financial institutions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances, the appellant was made to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,21,532/- under protest on 22-5-2004. 8. After the deposit of this amount, the appellant approached the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Bhuvneshwar and requested for the refund of this amount, inter alia, on the plea that excise 'dues have to be paid by the purchaser of the property of the defaulter. In response to the show cause notice dated 10-12-2004 issued calling upon the appellant to explain as to why the request for refund of Rs. 2,21,532/- made be not rejected as it was the liability of the appellant which had purchased the land belonging to the original owner, to clear the said dues which were payable by the original owner. The appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only the plot and not the entire unit. It was also submitted that in the instant case there was an auction of the properties belonging to the original owner by the financial institution and. predecessor in the interest of the appellant namely M/s. Zoravar Vanaspati Limited purchased the said plot in the said auction without any condition of such a liability. In such a case, the appellant who has purchased the property from the said auction purchaser is a bona fide purchaser of the plot in question. Her submission was that in such a scenario judgment in the case of Union of India v. SICOM Ltd., 2009 (233) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) = 2010 (18) S.T.R. 673 (S.C.), would be applicable where the Supreme Court distinguished all these aspects in detail an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resaid judgment was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. 13. In view of the aforesaid categorical legal position, it is clear that the Excise Department could not recover the amount of Rs. 2,21,532/- from the appellant which was the liability of the original owner, simply because the appellant bought the piece of a land. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent however submitted that there was a specific provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as in the Central Excise Rules. In this behalf he referred to the proviso to Section 11. This proviso is added .by way of amendment in the Act only with effect from 10-09-2004. This proviso incorporates the same language of Rule 230. These provisions would not be applicable in ....