TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2010-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 30-6-2010 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri R.K. Hasija; Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 344(RKS)CE/JPR-I/2007 dated 19-12-07. 2. Heard both sides extensively. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that a memorandum of notice of demand dated 29-6-07 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Section 142 of the Customs Act read with Customs (Attachment of property of Defaulter for the Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995 as made applicable to Central Excise matters for attaching the goods, land and building belonging to the appellants wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the present appellants holding them as successor in trade to the said M/s. Ashoka Zip Fastners Pvt. Ltd. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that they are not successor m the business of M/s. Ashoka Zip Fastners as seen by the notice dated 23-6-2007. He submits that they were not aware of the duty demand, if any, against M/s. Ashoka Zip Fastners. They had no direct dealings with the said M/s. Ashoka Zip Fastners Pvt. Ltd. It was after change of three hands, they have purchased the land and premises from M/s. Saint Soldiers Steel Pvt. Ltd. There fore, they cannot be treated as successor in trade merely because the building was long back occupied by the defaulter M/s. Ashoka Zip Fastners. He incidentally submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Macson Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 424 (S.C.) which held that Rule 230(2) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules provided the mode of recovery of dues from assets owned by predecessor and his liability being assessed and could be recovered even from the successor. He also submits that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relates to the time prior to amendment in Section 11 came into force. He also submits that the facts of the cases in the judgments relied upon by the assessee are different from the facts of the pre sent case. 7.1 I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. It is not in disp4te that the appellant is operating from the same premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances, I do not find the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding the appellant as successor in trade to M/s. Ashoka Zip Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. as justified. 8.1 As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate, Section 11 has been amended from 10-9-2004 making the successor in particular also liable for the dues of predecessor. Even if the appellants were to be treated as successor, (I have already held that the appellant is not successor in trade to M/s. Ashoka Zip Fastners Ltd.), amended Section 11 cannot be applied for the dues confirmed in the year 1992. 8.2 The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relates to erstwhile Rule 230(2) of Central Excise Rules. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
