2010 (3) TMI 695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - Appellant had leased out the factory to M/s. Shivam Export, against whom the department has made out a case for payment of Rs. 38,52,93,416/- on the ground that export obligation was not discharged. Since Shivam Exports has not paid the dues, factory premises has been attac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lable during the relevant time. Further, she also submits that they cannot be held responsible for the dues payable by the lessee. She also relies upon several decisions of the Tribunal in support of her contention that successor is not liable to pay dues of the predecessor. On the other hand learned DR submits that in view of the specific provision in the lease deed Shivam Exports could not have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... obligation. In these circumstances, Provisions of Section 11 and applicability of amendment to the Section dated 10-9-2004 are not relevant to the present case. Therefore, decisions cited by the learned advocate are of no help. We find that department has made out a strong prima facie case and we do not find this to be a fit case for grant of stay. At this stage, learned DR. submitted that in this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X