TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand notice was issued, the same came to be challenged by the auction purchaser. Notice was issued to the auction purchaser because the borrower had failed to discharge the excise duty liability. In Rana Girders Ltd, Supreme Court had considered two earlier decisions in MACSON MARBLES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2003 (11) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT] and UNION OF INDIA VERSUS SICOM LTD. [ 2008 (12) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT] and thereafter held UPFC being a secured creditor had priority over the excise dues. We further hold that since the appellant had not purchased the entire unit as a business, as per the statutory framework, he was not liable for discharging the dues of the Excise Department. Statutory liabilities arisin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A Rama Krishna Reddy Sc For Cbec ORDER: (PER THE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN) Heard Mr. P. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the notice of demand dated 02.11.2004 issued by respondent No.3 to the petitioners for recovery of central excise duty amounting to Rs.43,81,475.00 and penalty of Rs.49,81,475.00 plus interest which was due to be paid by respondent No.4 (M/s.Chemo Steels Private Limited). 3. The land admeasuring Acs.3.00 situated in Survey No.10 of Gaddapotharam Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District (briefly the subject land hereinafter) and the plant and machinery on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be responsible to discharge the liability of Central Excise as well. Otherwise, the subsequent purchaser cannot be fastened with the liability relating to the dues of the Government unless there is a specific provision in the statute, claiming first charge for the purchaser . As far as the Central Excise Act is concerned, there was no such specific provision as noticed in SICOM as well. The proviso to Section 11 is now added by way of amendment in the Act only w.e.f. 10-9-2004. Therefore, we are eschewing our discussion regarding this proviso as that is not applicable insofar as present case is concerned. Accordingly, we thus, hold that insofar as legal position is concerned, UPFC being a secured creditor had priority over the excise due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for purchase of plant and machinery talk of statutory liabilities arising out of the land or statutory liabilities arising out of the said properties (i.e. the machinery). Thus, it is only that statutory liability which arises out of the land and building or out of plant and machinery which is to be discharged by the purchaser. Excise dues are not the statutory liabilities which arise out of the land and building or the plant and machinery. Statutory liabilities arising out of the land and building could be in the form of the property tax or other types of cess relating to property, etc. Likewise, statutory liability arising out of the plant and machinery could be the sales tax, etc. payable on the said machinery. As far as dues of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
