9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 690 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of registration - Held that - In the case of Krishna Lifestyle Technologies Ltd. (2008 (2) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY) the Hon ble High Court of Bombay has held that purchase of immovable/movable assets of a tax defaulter, though assets were sold, sale of assets by itself would not be transfer of business in whole or in part, there must be material on record to show that business has been transferred to Petitioner and consequent thereto petitioner has succeeded in business. In absence of petitioner succeeding in business or part of business, issue of petitioner being liable for arrears of Central Excise dues will not arise. appellant is not a successor of business of M/s. Anway Industries, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the arrears of Central Excise dues pending against M/s. Anway Industries. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order the same is upheld - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Registration denial to the appellant by the adjudicating authority - Liability of the appellant to pay the dues of a defaulter business - Interpretation of the Tripartite agreement - Applicability of legal precedents in determining liability Analysis: 1. Registration Denial: The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order denying registration to the appellant, which was subsequently granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that the appellant was entitled to registration despite objections raised by the adjudicating authority. 2. Liability of Appellant: The core issue revolved around the liability of the appellant to pay the dues of a defaulter business, M/s. Anway Industries. The Revenue argued that the appellant had undertaken to pay the dues, as per the Tripartite agreement, and should be held liable for the same. However, the respondent contended that they were not the successor of the defaulter business and, therefore, should not be held responsible for the dues. 3. Tripartite Agreement Interpretation: The Tripartite agreement between MSFC, M/s. Namoh Developers, and the respondent played a crucial role in determining the obligations of the appellant regarding the payment of dues. The agreement outlined the responsibilities and liabilities concerning the plot of land in question. 4. Legal Precedents: The respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Krishna Lifestyle Technologies Ltd. and a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mars Packaging Pvt. Ltd. to support their argument that the appellant, not being the successor of the defaulter business, should not bear the burden of clearing the dues. 5. Judgment: After considering the arguments from both sides and the legal precedents cited, the Member (J) held that the appellant was not the successor of M/s. Anway Industries and, therefore, was not liable to pay the arrears of Central Excise dues pending against the defaulter. Citing the Bombay High Court judgment, it was emphasized that there must be evidence of the business being transferred for the liability to arise. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, the significance of the Tripartite agreement, the application of legal precedents, and the ultimate decision reached by the Tribunal.
|
