IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2108 OF 2010 M/s.PVC Converters (India) Pvt.Ltd. and another. ... Petitioners. V/s. Union of India and another. ... Respondents. Vikram Nankani with Sushanth Murthy i/b. Madhur Baya for the petitioners. P.S.Jetly with J.B.Mishra for the respondents. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 17th March 2010. P.C. : Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Jetly waives service for the respondents. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner No.1 is the company, inter alia; engaged in the business of manufacturing PVC films and sheeting at one of its factories situated at Daman. The Company acquired the Daman Unit from Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (MSFC) on “as is where is” basis and free from all encumbrances, who had taken over the same towards recovery of its dues under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (“SFC Act” for short) of M/s.Shakti Rods and Wires Pvt.Ltd (“Shakti” for short) which was previously known as Sunflow Metals Ltd. 3. Shakti had defaulted in payment of central excise duty and other dues to the Central Excise Department aggregating to Rs.2,79,99,474/-. The respondent No.2 i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman sought to recover the said amount of central excise dues from the petitioner. 4. The petitioner contends that the recovery cannot be effected from the petitioner in exercise of powers under section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 since the petitioner has acquired assets of the defaulting unit, namely, Shakti and not its business in whole or in part. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Lifestyle Technologies Ltd. v. Union of India, 2008 (229) ELT 173 (Bom.) approved by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. SICOM Limited, 2009 (233) ELT 433 (SC); wherein it has been categorically held that unless there is transfer of business in whole or in part, the transferee cannot be held liable to pay the outstanding dues of the transferor/ defaulting unit. In view of this settled legal position and for the reasons stated in the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Lifestyle Technologies Ltd. (supra), the notice dated 16th February, 2010 seeking to recover excise dues of the transferor/ defaulting unit is bad and illegal as such liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. In the result, notice issued by the respondent Central Excise Department dated 16th February, 2010 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)