9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consider as successor and Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be pressed into service to include several generation of successor. In as much as in that case, the appellant was the third owner of the land and building, Tribunal held that recovery of dues pending against the first owner cannot be made against the third owner of land and building - assessee is in any way related to M/s. Purohit Steel Rolling Pvt. Ltd. or M/s. Prabhu Steels Ltd. or in any way connected with the cases wherein demand was confirmed against M/s. Purohit Steel Rolling Pvt. Ltd., I find no reason to direct recovery of the dues from the present respondent - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1940/2007 -EX[SM] - Final Order No.50182/2014 - Dated:- 16- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act, 1962, read with Rule 4 of Customs (Attachment of property of defaulter for the recovery of Government dues) Rules, 1995, directed the assessee to deposit the said dues which were outstanding against M/s. Shri Prurohit Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. The same was confirmed by the lower authorities. However, on appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) observed as under:- 6. I find that in the instant matter, the pending excise dues are not being recovered from the successor as the successor is Rajasthan Financial Corporation and not the appellant. The successor is Rajasthan Financial Corporation who was taken over the plant and machinery of M/s. Shri Purohit Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwadi. I observe that the liability / arrears i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue has filed appeal against the said order. 4. After hearing both the sides, I find that there is no disputes on the facts. The respondent is the third successor of the land and building from where M/s. Shri Purohit Steel Rolling Pvt. Ltd. operating. He is manufacturing goods which are entirely different from the goods being manufactured by M/s. Shri Purohit Steel Rolling Pvt. Ltd. As such, they cannot be held to be successor in business of the defaulter. Tribunal in the case of Mars Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur [2010 (257) E.L.T. 463 (Tri. -Del.)] observed that mere transfer of land and building, appellants could not be consider as successor and Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be pressed into service to include ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
