Sale Deed dated 8.3.2002 was executed in favour of the appellant qua the land and building.
Some penalties were also imposed by the adjudicating authority, under the Central Excise Act which were appealed again by the borrower.
By the said advertisement, offers for sale of land and building companysisting of land area 13390 sq.
meter and companyered area of 2429 sq.
The appellant also purchased plant and machinery in the said auction for a total companysideration of Rs.1 Crore 93 Lakh for which Agreement dated 15th March 2002 was executed by the parties.
This public numberice also stipulated certain terms and companyditions on which offer were invited.
Ltd. Dated 20th March 2002 was the highest and thus, successful bidder in respect of land and building as well as plant and machinery.
The borrower has number questioned the validity of the said auction which has attained finality.
meter, plant and machinery and other fixed assets of the borrower were invited on as is where is basis .
Ltd. at that time and has number companyverted into a Public Limited Company known as M s. Rana Girders Pvt.
It is this order which is the subject matter of present appeal.
The appellant is resisting the demand with the posture that since the aforesaid properties have been purchased by the appellant in an open auction from the UPFC, free from all encumbrances, it is number the liability of the purchaser to make payment of the dues of excise department.
One M s. P.J. Steels Pvt.
Ltd. borrower had taken loans financial accommodation from the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation UPFC .
K.SIKRI,J. Leave granted.
Because of the companysistent default on the part of the said borrower in re paying the loans, the UPFC took possession of the land and building of the borrower which were mortgaged kept as security with the UPFC.
It appears that the borrower had also to discharge the liability qua excise duty which had amounted to Rs.1,00,72,442/ .
To recover that amount, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut I respondent No.2 herein is number pressing the appellant to discharge this liability as purchaser and successor in interest of the land and building plus plant and machinery of the borrower.
After taking physical possession of the unit, the UPFC held public auction on pursuant to advertisement which was issued on 8th January 2002.
Therefore, the issue which has arisen for our companysideration in this appeal is as to whether excise department can recover the amount in question from the appellant.
In the said public auction companyducted by UPFC, the appellant herein appellant which was known as M s. Sarju Steels Pvt.
This issue has cropped up in the following factual background As already pointed out above, after taking possession of the unit of the borrower under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, the UPFC issued an advertisement dated 8.1.2002 in the newspapers for public auction of the said properties.
