2006 (7) TMI 487 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Purchase of premises and legal liabilities connected with the previous owner.
2. Default in payment of excise duty by the previous owner and subsequent actions taken by the department.
3. Application for registration with Central Excise Authority and refusal based on pending dues of the previous owner.
4. Request for copies of orders related to Central Excise duty demand and reconsideration of registration refusal.
5. Contesting the order-in-appeal issued against the previous owner due to registration refusal.
6. Argument regarding liability for legal liabilities of the previous owner and contesting the order-in-appeal.
7. Determination of locus standi and maintainability of the appeal based on the appellants' status as purchasers.

Analysis:
1. The appellants purchased premises with a constructed building from a bank to whom the previous owner had mortgaged the property. The bank agreed to settle legal dues connected with the previous owner. The appellants were offered to purchase the leasehold right of the plot separately.

2. The previous owner defaulted in paying excise duty and faced consequences such as forfeiture of installment facility, show cause notice, and subsequent confirmation of duty, interest, and penalty. The appellants, as purchasers, contested the order-in-appeal related to the previous owner's case.

3. The appellants applied for registration with the Central Excise Authority but were denied due to pending dues of the previous owner. They requested copies of orders related to the dues and reconsideration of the registration refusal, offering to pay any dues subject to their legal rights.

4. Despite the appellants' efforts to obtain registration and willingness to address any dues, the Central Excise authorities maintained their stance of not granting registration until the dues against the previous owner were recovered.

5. The appellants contested the order-in-appeal against the previous owner due to the refusal of registration based on pending dues, highlighting their readiness to pay any outstanding amounts.

6. The appellants argued that they were not liable for the previous owner's legal liabilities as they only purchased the land and building, not the business itself. They cited precedents to support their position and sought to set aside the order-in-appeal against the previous owner.

7. The Tribunal determined that the appellants, as mere purchasers of the property, did not inherit the legal liabilities of the previous owner. They were not successors or transferees of the business and therefore lacked the standing to contest the order-in-appeal against the previous owner. The appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable, emphasizing the need for separate legal remedies for the registration issue.