9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding and Plant & Machinery from M/s. Ganga Sagar & Company from Madhya Pradesh financial Corporation (here-in-after referred to as MPFC), who had earlier acquired the said Land & Building and Plant & Machinery from M/s. Ganga Sagar & Company in 1997, due to default in repayment of loan. The said purchase from M/s. MPFC was on 12.09.01, under an agreement entered into between the respondent and MPFC. 3. Inasmuch as, Central Excise Department was to recover certain dues from the earlier concern M/s. Ganga Sagar & Company, the original adjudicating authority passed an order dated 23.02.05 directing the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 31,88,827/- (Thirty one lakh eighty eight thousand eight hundred twenty seven)outstanding against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall examine the plea raised by the petitioner company namely whether the plant / machinery of the Appellants could be detained for enforcing the liability of the previous owner when Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules is no longer in the statue book (this Rule as well as the entire Central Excise Rules, 1944 were omitted w.e.f. 1.07.01) and a new provision on similar lines has been introduced by way of proviso to Section 11 of the Act only in 2004. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order has referred to Section 38A of the Act and has held that the provisions of Rule 230 would continue to be applicable / effective in view of the aforesaid Section 38A and therefore the dues can be recovered from the Appellants. It is seen that Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waived the payment of duty and penalty for hearing the appeal. Similarly, in the case of Press Fab. Precition Comonents (P) Ltd. the Tribunal as well as Karnataka High Court --- See 2006 (195) ELT 229 (Tri Bang) and 2007 (207) ELT 207 (Kar) - have taken a view that duty is not demandable on the basis of a provision which was introduced after the period of dispute i.e. w.e.f. 10.09.04 and have therefore set aside the duty demands on the aforesaid company who had taken over the previous company (the previous company was a partnership firm and this was converted into a Pvt. Ltd. company). The case law relating to Macson Marble Pvt. Ltd. referred to by the Adjudicating Authority is also not relevant on account of the facts as narrated above and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various decisions of the higher appellant forums and the revenue is not challenging the applicability of the same. Similarly, the Supreme Court decision in the case of Macson Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (158) ELT 424 (S.C.) relied upon by the revenue stands duly discussed by Commissioner (Appeals) and has been held to be non applicable. 7. Otherwise also I find that the respondent was not successor in business of M/s. Ganga Sagar & Company. They have purchased 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. 8. Revenue's appeal is accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
