TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urwala, J.) :. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is a purchaser of the movable and immovable assets of the respondent No. 5/Karkhana in an auction proceedings at the behest of the respondent No. 6/bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short "Securitization Act"). The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are claiming the recovery of excise dues outstanding against the respondent No. 5/Karkhana from the petitioner. The petitioner assails the said action in the instant petition. 3. Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a bonafi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent No. 6/bank had the knowledge of the outstanding dues of the Central Excise Department. The respondent No. 4 issued letters to the respondent No. 5/Karkhana and the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, who was acting as administrator/liquidator of the respondent No. 5. The administrator/liquidator of the respondent No. 5 was having the knowledge of confirmed demand of Central Excise Department. The tender notice published by the respondent No. 6/bank for sale of the respondent No. 5 is with the note that the property is sold on as is where is basis and with unknown encumbrances not known by the bank. After the purchase, the petitioner also approached the respondent No. 4 for Central Excise and Service Tax registr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts that, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 52,44,288/plus interest from the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has also paid part amount of Rs. 5.39 Lakhs and agreed to pay the balance in installments. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of M/s. Rana Girders Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 3422 and submits that, the petitioner has purchased the entire unit and as such is liable to pay the dues. The tender notice was for sale of entire unit of the respondent No. 5/Karkhana. There is also delay in filing the writ petition by the petitioner. 7. Upon having considered the contentions of the parties, the moot question for determination is, "W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Perusal of the tender notice and the sell certificate, it is manifest that the respondent No. 6 has resorted to an action U/Sec. 13(4) of the Securitization Act for sale of the movable and immovable assets of the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 6 did not sell the running business of the respondent No. 5 to the petitioner, but had only sold the movable and immovable assets. We do not find any document of whatsoever nature to hold that the respondent No. 6/bank had sold the running business of the respondent No. 5 by way of auction to the petitioner. The sale certificate specifically recites about the property of the respondent No. 5. 9. The petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the excise dues of the erstwhile owner of the propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall, save as otherwise provided in section 529A of the Companies Act, 1856, (1 of 1956) the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and the Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and the Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002) be the first charge on the property of the assessee or the person, as the case may be.'] 12. Section 11E of the Central Excise Act provides that the duty payable by an assessee under the Central Excise Act or the Rules made thereunder shall, save as otherwise provided under the Securitization Act 2002 and the other acts detailed therein be the first charge on the property of the assessee o....