TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase was not the result of a voluntary transfer by the industry. It was in the course of recovery of loan, that the property came to be sold and it was rather incidental, that the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder. Things would have been different altogether, had the sale in favour of the petitioner taken place after the department has attached that very property for recovery of arrears of duty. That, however, is not the case. It is only after the sale in favour of the petitioner became the absolute and the property vested in them free from any encumbrances, that respondents 1 and 2 initiated proceedings for recovery of arrears of duty and sought to attach the property. In respect of the very property purchased by the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 39,26,030/- and that being the purchaser of property of the industry, the petitioner is liable to pay the same. The petitioner submitted explanation on 19.02.2007. Not satisfied with that, respondents 1 and 2 proceeded to attach the property. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopalakrishna Gokhaley, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. It may be true that the industry, which fell sick, was in arrears of excise duty and respondents 1 and 2 were entitled to take steps for recovery of the same. In a given case, the Central Excise Department is entitled to proceed against the movable or immovable property of the manufacturer for recovery of the arrears of duty. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Limited (2009) 2 SCC 121, the Honble Supreme Court approved the said principle and the same was followed in Ranga Girders Limited v. Union of India (2013) 10 SCC 746. Another aspect is that in respect of the very property purchased by the petitioner, steps were initiated by the electricity supplier for recovery of arrears of the electricity charges. The petitioner filed W.P.No.3452 of 2007. This Court allowed the writ petition through order, dated 23.02.2007. It is stated that the said order was affirmed by a Division Bench in the writ appeal. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any basis for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the proceedings initiated against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
