TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner assailing the validity of the order dated 21.04.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Department, Udaipur, whereby the refund claim submitted by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,10,375/- was rejected. 2. The facts in nutshell in the present writ petition are that an advertisement dated 02.02.2001 (Annexure-1) was published in the newspaper whereby RIICO sought to auction certain industrial plots with plant and machinery on "as is where is" basis. The petitioner submitted its bid for the property shown at Serial No.18 in the advertisement dated 02.02.2001. The offer submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the RIICO and was communicated to the petitioner vide its communication dated 24.08.2001 (Annexure-3). The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G Granite Pvt. Ltd. was to be cleared by the petitioner being its successor. It was further stated that in view of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1944'), the excise duty, if any remains due stands transferred and the subsequent purchaser is required to clear those dues. In support of the contentions raised by the respondents, a heavy reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Macson Marble Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2003 (158) ELT-424 (SC) equivalent citation AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4927. 4. Mr. Rahul Lekhwani, learned counsel for the petitioner has precisely made the following submissions:- 5. Firstly, the petitioner cannot be denied refund of clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts made the following submissions:- 7. Firstly, the refund claim was rightly rejected by the respondent No.3 in view of the fact that it was not only the fixed assets and the property which was transferred, but even the business was also transferred. Secondly, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Macson Marbles (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while distinguishing the judgment relied upon by the petitioner therein in case of Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board reported in (1995) 2 SCC 648 has held that the demand against the subsequent buyer was sustainable under Rule 230(2) of the Rules of 1944. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions of S.F.C. Act took full effect whenever such assets have vested in buyer free from all encumbrance.' 10. In the present case, the offer of the petitioner was accepted by RIICO on 24.08.2001 and conveyance deed was executed on 24.09.2001. 11. In view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rishabhdeo Tex Print (supra), submissions made by petitioner appears to be justified while contending that since there was no provision for shifting liability of the predecessor in the intervening period and, therefore, no demand could have been raised for the said period and department was not at all justified in denying the refund of the claim deposited by the petitioner under protest. 12. The respondents on other ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund claim of the petitioner by the respondent-department cannot be held to be justified in any manner. 14. The contention of the petitioner that it has purchased immovable property with assets and liability and not the business. The advertisement issued by the RIICO nowhere indicates that they are proposing to auction the business of M/s HMG Granite Pvt. Ltd. The details as provided in the advertisement only speaks of the land and the plant and machinery attached to it. In view of the condition mentioned in the advertisement, the contention as raised by the respondents with regard to the transfer of business cannot be accepted. Counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that it was the auction only for land with attached plant ....