TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the Land & Machinery from MPFC in the year 2001, which was acquired by MPFC in the year 1997. As such, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the recovery of dues outstanding against M/s. Ganga Sagar & Company cannot be affected against the respondent. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. 698/2008-EX[SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 50564/2014 - Dated:- 12-2-2014 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. For the Appellant : Shri B.B. Sharma, AR For the Respondent : Shri A.G. Kulkarni, CA JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri B.B. Sharma, learned advocate appearing for the revenue and Shri A.G. Kulkarni learned CA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid dues from the Appellants being the successor to the previous owner of the property. In the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has held that the Govt. dues of ₹ 31.89 Lakhs which was recoverable from M/s. Ganga Sagar Co. is payable by the Appellants and they have been directed to make the payment forthwith failing which the department can proceed to recover the amount by auction of the detained assets. In this case it is seen that the Appellants had approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) with reference to a detention order dated March 04, 2005 issued to them for recovery of the aforesaid dues by way of detention of excisable goods, raw material, plant and machinery etc. and the court vide their dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not applied in the present case when no action could have been taken on the Appellants prior to the omission of Rule 230, because the present Appellants had purchased the factory of M/s. Ganga Sagar and Co. sometime in Sept. 2001 i.e., after the Rule has been omitted. Therefore I am of the opinion that no action can be taken to recover the Govt. dues payable by M/s. Ganga Sagar and Co. from the present Appellants in terms of the provisions of the erstwhile Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules or under the proviso to Section 11 of the Act, which came into force in 2004. In this regard I find that the Tribunal in the case of Sumo Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I (cited by the Appellants) have held that demand of duty from the buyer of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Corporation has sold the unit to the Appellants and the ownership of the company is with the Appellants only and not with the financial corporation. In view of this position, the department cannot proceed to collect the dues of M/s. Ganga Sagar Co. from the Appellants. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Hence the present appeal by the revenue. 5. The only ground raised by the revenue in their memo of appeal is that the decision in the case of M/s. Gatiman Auto Pvt. Ltd. order in appeal No. IND-I/13/2008 dated 08.10.2007, referred to by the respondent have not been accepted by the revenue and an appeal has been filed before Tribunal on 27.08.2007. However, the learned DR has not brought to my notice, the result of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
