9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. As per facts on record, one M/s. Vaibhav Steels Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and demand of duty of Rs. 15 lakhs was confirmed against them and penalty of identical amount was imposed. Subsequently, the said unit was acquired by U.P. Financial Corporation, who sold the same to the present appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led against by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same by observing as under : The provisions of Section 142(l)(ii) of the Customs Rules, 1962 are very clear so far as the recovery of the Govt. dues is concerned. The provisions of Section 142(l)(ii) ibid (made applicable to central excise matters by Notification No. 63/63-C.E., dated 4-5-63) clearly indicates that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contention of the appellant that the said land and building (B-45/50, Jasodharpur, Kotdwar) was purchased by them from U.P.F.C. Ltd. and they (appellant) are not liable to pay any dues pertaining to their predecessor unit, is not acceptable. 4. The appellant s contention is that the applicability of Section 142 (c) (ii) by Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct, inasmuch as the said Section au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (158) E.L.T. 424 (S.C.) relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not applicable, inasmuch as the same is in terms of Rule 230 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which was not in the statute book for the period under reference. 5. After carefully appreciating the submissions made by both sides, we find that Section 142(c)(ii) is that - if the amount cannot be recovered from such person in the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
