2007 (6) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction that the respondents should not give effect to the notice dated 28-12-2006 served on the petitioner on 13-01-2007.  3. The admitted facts of the case are that the property, which is sought to be attached and the notice which is issued pertains to the property, which was not the property of the Company, but ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned notice is bad and is liable to be struck down. 4. Mr. A. Rajashekar Reddy, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents relied on the proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") to suggest that even purchaser of the property, which had cloud, is liable for making good the dues to the department.  5. Proviso to Section 11 of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther sums recoverable or due from such predecessor at the time of such transfer or otherwise disposal or change." 6. On bare perusal of the proviso, it becomes clear that where a person from whom duty or any other sum of any kind is recoverable disposes of his business or trade in whole or in part, the subsequent owner shall be equally responsible for its payment.  There can be no other in....