HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rana Girders Ltd.
Versus
Union of India
WRIT TAX NO. 383 OF 2005
NOVEMBER 25, 2011
JUDGMENT
1. We have heard Shri Subham Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri S.P. Kesarwani, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.
2. M/s P.J. Steels Pvt. Limited, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar set up an industrial unit with the financial assistance of U.P. Financial Corporation (UPFC). On the defaults committed by the company in repayment, the industrial unit was taken over by the UPFC under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and was put to sale. M/s. Sarju Steels Pvt. Limited purchased the unit and took over physical possession from UPFC. The land & building was transferred by UPFC to M/s. Sarju Steels Pvt. Ltd. by a transfer deed dated 8-3-2002. By a separate deed the plant and machinery of the unit was transferred to the purchaser on 14-3-2002. The land & building as well as plant & machinery were transferred by UPFC free from all encumbrances and liability.
3. By a special resolution dated 16-2-2002 the Board of Directors of M/s. Sarju Steels Pvt. Limited changed the name of the company to M/s. Rana Girders (P.) Limited – the petitioner. The Registrar of Companies, Kanpur issued a certificate of incorporation, to the company, consequent upon change of its name on 28-3-2002 under Section 23(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. M/s. Rana Girders (P.) Limited was registered under the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, bearing registration No. AACCR0898QXN001.
4. On 25-8-2004 the petitioner-company received a notice from the office of Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Division-II, Muzaffarnagar regarding certain dues of its predecessor namely M/s. P.J. Steels (P.) Ltd. for which adjudication orders dated 29-8-2002, 22-11-2002 and 22-7-2003 were passed. The Assistant Commissioner also drew attention of the petitioner to a judgment of Supreme Court in Macson Marbles (P.) Limited v. Union of India 2003 (158) E.L.T. 424, in which it was held that the Central Excise duty is recoverable from the auction purchaser unit in terms of the then Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner referred to the incorporation of the Rules in Section 11 of the Central Excise Act w.e.f. 10-9-2004 as amended by the Finance Act No. 2 of 2004. The Central Excise department sought to recover an amount of Rs. 50,84,009/-, as adjudicated in the three cases against M/s. P.J. Steels (P.) Limited.
5. By a notice dated 21-9-2004 the Superintendent of Central Excise, with reference to the dues against M/s. P.J. Steels (P.) Limited Muzaffarnagar, requested to the petitioner in terms of Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, to pay Rs. 1,00,72,442/- (Rs. 50,84,009/- as excise duty and Rs. 49,88,433/- as penalty) against the three adjudication orders referred to in the notice as follows :-
