- (1.) M/s. Kashi Ram Panna Lal Industries Private Limited had mortgaged its unit at 97-Khanchandpur, Rania, Kanpur Dehat with U.P. Financial Corporation (in short UPFC) for a loan. It defaulted in the payment of loan. Therefore, UPFC took possession of the unit and advertised it for sale, vide Dainik Jagran dated February 25, 2003. The petitioner a separate legal entity and a private limited company offered to purchase the aforesaid unit and its tender was accepted by UPFC on May 3, 2003. In pursuance of the above acceptance, UPFC executed a sale dated May 9, 2003 in favour of Subhash Chandra Gupta and Raj Kumar Gupta, the directors of the company on receiving the sale consideration of Rs. 60,000,00. The sale deed specifically provided that the property is being transferred free from all charges and encumbrances. Thus, the aforesaid two purchasers became the absolute owners of the unit whereon the petitioner is running its business. It appears that the previous owners, M/s. Kashi Ram Panna Lal Industries Private Limited were in arrears of excise dues also and as such the Department of Central excise vide the letter dated May 27, 2003 called upon UPFC to clear the aforesaid dues. The response of the above letter, if any, is not available on record. However, when the sale deed was executed, two demand notices dated October 12, 2004 and October 25, 2004 were issued and served upon the petitioner requiring it to pay excise dues of Rs. 36,57,000 of the previous owners. The aforesaid two demand notices have been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present writ petition.
(2.) Necessary counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the petitioner and the excise Department, i.e., respondents Nos. 1 and 2. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of UPFC despite service of notice upon its counsel. Notices to respondent No. 4 were directed to be issued vide the order dated November 24, 2004 and office reports dated December 3, 2004 and January 11, 2005 states that neither the notices sent by registered post fixing a date have been returned undelivered nor AD has been received back. Despite deemed service upon respondent No. 4 no one has appeared and filed any response on his behalf.
(3.) We have heard Shri Gopal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for Central excise respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and with their consent proceed to decide the writ petition finally at the admission stage.;