MACSON MARBLES PRIVATE LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition raises a question whether the Petitioner -firm is liable to be saddled with the liability of excise duty which were due against M/s. Diamond Marbles Pvt. Ltd. - the predecessor -in -title of the petitioner -firm.

(2.) M /s. Diamond Marbles Pvt. Ltd. established a unit with the assistance of the Corporation at Rajnagar, District Rajaamand. Having gone into default, the unit was taken over by the Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter the Act of 1951). Having taken possession of the facilities of M/s. Diamond Marbles Pvt. Ltd., the Corporation held an auction and in this auction petitioner's bid was accepted and an agreement was executed between the Corporation and the petitioner -firm that the facilities of M/s. Diamond Marbles Pvt. Ltd. shall stand transferred to the petitioner -firm subject to condition that it will clear the liabilities of R.S.E.B. and P.H.E.D. and the dues of RIICO will be cleared by the Corporation. The agreement Ex. 1 makes a stipulation that the properties have been agreed to be sold free from all encumbrances except the charges of the Corporation and the RIICO. The agreement also takes note of the fact that the premises were sold on 'as is where is' basis.

(3.) A reply has been filed on behalf of Union of India and the Superintendent, Central Excise, wherein it has been contended that an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the petitioner and without exhausting that remedy the Petitioner could not have come before this court. It has also been contended on behalf of the Department that Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') makes a clear provision that successor -in -interest is also liable for the excise duty.