TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 989
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f law in exonerating the respondent from liability of payment of Government dues in the capacity of successor of Shree Vaishnavi Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. in terms of proviso to section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944?" 2. We have heard senior counsel Shri R.J. Oza for the Revenue and with his assistance examined the material on record. 3. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication are as follows : 3.1 M/s. Vaishnavi Dyeing & Printing Mills Ltd which was engaged in manufacturing of Man Made Fabrics, had not paid the central excise duty as provided under the law. The show cause notice was issued and the same was adjudicated by the competent authority. No appeal was f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeal. 3.5 Aggrieved respondents when preferred appeal before the CESTAT, it held in favour of the respondent and against the Revenue. Therefore, the present appeal challenging such order by proposing the afore-mentioned question of law. 4. We notice that the emphasis on part of the Revenue is to clause in sale deed and all through out it insisted that as assets are sold on 'as is where is basis' by the vendor to the purchaser, such outstanding dues are required to be paid by the respondent. The tribunal by exhaustive discussion, relying on the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Krishna Lifestyle Technologies Ltd. held in favour of the assessee. 5. We notice that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cific provision in the Statute, claiming "first charge for the purchaser". As far as Central Excise Act is concerned, there was no such specific provision as noticed in SICOM as well. Proviso to Section 11 is now added by way of amendment in the Act only w.e.f. 10.9.2004. Therefore, we are eschewing our discussion regarding this proviso as that is not applicable in so far as present case is concerned. Accordingly, we thus, hold that in so far as legal position is concerned, UPFC being a secured creditor had priority over the excise dues. We further hold that since the appellant had not purchased the entire unit as a business, as per the statutory framework he was not liable for discharging the dues of the Excise Department. &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery which is to be discharged by the purchaser. Excise dues are not the statutory liabilities which arise out of the land and building or the plant and machinery. Statutory liabilities arising out of the land and building could be in the form of the property tax or other types of cess relating to property etc. Likewise, statutory liability arising out of the plant and machinery could be the sales tax etc. payable on the said machinery. As far as dues of the Central Excise are concerned, they were not related to the said plant and machinery or the land and building and thus did not arise out of those properties. Dues of the Excise Department became payable on the manufacturing of excisable items by the erstwhile owner, therefore, these statu....