JUDGMENT : S.K. Dhaon, J. On 3rd July, 1971 the undertaking of M/s. Ram Lakshman Sugar Mills (hereinafter referred to as the Mills) was transferred to and vested in the Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Limited (the Petitioner) u/s 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Ordinance 1971, which has been replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as (Acquisition Act). The mills were specified in Schedule I to the Act, for the purposes of undertakings specified in Schedule 1 3rd July, 1971 is the "appointed day". 2. During the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 the, Mills incurred liabilities to pay additional excise duty on sugar u/s 7 of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The question is whether the Petitioner is an "owner" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act so that the liability of the Mills may be fastened upon it. 3. The relevant facts are in a narrow compass. In purported exercise of power u/s 18-AA of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, the Central Government appointed the General Manager of the Petitioner Corporation as the Authorised Controller of the Mills. The Authorised Controller managed the Mills from July 1969 to 2nd July, 1971. Even after the vesting of the Mills in the Petitioner on 3rd July, 1971 the Authorised Controller (General Manager) continued to manage the undertaking on behalf of the Petitioner. The rebates realised by the Authorised Controller prior to 3rd July, 1971 was credited to the account of the Mills and placed in the compensation pool in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition Act. A sum of Rs. 22,896/- which was realised as rebate for the period beginning from 1st October, 1969 and ending on 30th November 1970 had been credited to the account of the owners of the Mills by the Authorised Controller. The rebate of Rs. 39,136/- for the period beginning from 1st July, 1970 and ending on 30th September, 1970 was also credited to the compensation pool of the owners of the Mills. A sum of Rs. 1,16,739/-, the rebate between the period 1st October, 1971 to 30th November 1971, had been realised and credited to the account of the Petitioner Corporation. 39,136/- for the period beginning from 1st July, 1970 and ending on 30th September, 1970 was also credited to the compensation pool of the owners of the Mills. A sum of Rs. 1,16,739/-, the rebate between the period 1st October, 1971 to 30th November 1971, had been realised and credited to the account of the Petitioner Corporation. Some Correspondence took place between the General Manager of the Petitioner Corporation and the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, on the question whether Section 7 of the Act will be applicable to the Petitioner on 5th April, 1973 the Superintendent, Central Excise, informed the General Manager that a sum of Rs. 2,22,420.65 had been debited from the account of the Petitioner as against the outstanding demands. Finally, on 8th September, 1977 the Under Secretary of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, wrote to the General Manager that u/s 7 of the Act it (the Petitioner) was liable to pay the arrears of excise duty. 4. The prayer is that the communications dated 5th April, 1973 and 8th September, 1977 may be quashed. The prayer also is that a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued commanding the Respondents to forbear from enforcing the liability of additional excise duty to the tune of Rs. 2 22 420 65 against the Petitioner in respect of default of export quota delivery committed in the years 1968-69 and 1969-70. 5. The Respondents have rested their oars on the definition of "owner" as contained in Section 2(e) of the Act that provision may be extracted: 2. in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (e) "owner"- (i) with reference to any factory the possession of which has been transferred by lease, mortgage or otherwise, means the transferee so long as his right to possession subsists; (ii) with reference to any factory for which an agent, by whatever name called, is employed, means the agent if, and in so far as he has been duly authorised by the owner in that behalf, and (iii) with reference to any factory the management of which has been taken over by any person or body of persona under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, means that person or body of persons; 6. The possession of the factory had undoubtedly been transferred to the corporation on July 3, 1971 by operation of law (Section 3 of the Acquisition Act). The possession of the factory had undoubtedly been transferred to the corporation on July 3, 1971 by operation of law (Section 3 of the Acquisition Act). During the period 1968-69 and 1969-70 the General Manager of the Corporation was the authorised controller of M/s Ram Lakshman Sugar Mills by virtue of his appointment as such u/s 12-AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Even after the vesting of the said undertaking in the Corporation on or after July 3, 1971 the General Manager of the Corporation continued to be its authorised controller. However, the question which is still to be answered is whether the Corporation is liable to pay the duty of excise u/s 7 of the Act even for the period anterior to July 3, 1971 No doubt, the emphasis in the definition in Section 2(e) is on possession and not ownership. However, the possession must be by a method recognised by law. Transfer of possession too must be by means of any legally recognised device. Nonetheless, it appears to us, the liability should be of the person who was in possession on the relevant date, namely, the date on which the liability to pay duty of excise accrued. We are saying so after a careful reading of Sections 6, 7 and 9 of the Act together. The demand contemplated in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 by the export agency is from the owner. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that the delivery of sugar has to be made by the owner and after the delivery has been made, no right is retained by him (the owner) in respect of sugar. The only right which is reserved to him is to receive the payment u/s 9 Obviously the demand can be made only from an owner in present, namely, the one who was legally and factually the owner on the date of the demand. It is nobody's case that during the relevant period, namely, 1968-69 and 1969-70 the Corporation was the owner. Section 6 also makes it clear that the export agency while making the demand has to specify the time within which the delivery of sugar has to be made. Time must have been specified by the export agency to the person who was the owner during the relevant period. Section 6 also makes it clear that the export agency while making the demand has to specify the time within which the delivery of sugar has to be made. Time must have been specified by the export agency to the person who was the owner during the relevant period. The default so as to attract Section 7 must have been made by the owner to whom the demand for delivery of sugar was made. It is evident that the Corporation was not the defaulter. Section 9 talks of payment to the owner of the sugar delivered by him to the export agency. This provision indicates that the payment has to be made to the owner who delivered the sugar. 7. There is another feature in Section 9 which gives a clue to the intent of the draftsman! The opening words of Sub-section (I) of the said provision are "the export agency shall at such time as thinks fit...". It is thus evident that Section 9 contemplates deferred payment. It negatives the Idea of the payment simultaneously with the delivery of sugar u/s 6 we may visualize the situation where the sugar is delivered by an owner. However, before the payment is made u/s 9 the factory is transferred in any of the manners enumerated in Sub-clause (i) of Section 2(3) of the Act. The question will arise as to whether the price of sugar will be payable u/s 9 to the transferee or to the owner who delivered the sugar. The provisions of the Act are silent on this aspect of the matter. The terms of the transfer may or may not reserve the right of the transferee to receive the price of the sugar supplied u/s 6. If the transferee, under the provisions of the Act, is not entitled to get the price of the sugar normally, unless the provisions of the Act provide either expressly or impliedly to the contrary, the liability of the payment of additional excise duty u/s 7 should not be fastened upon the transferee. 8. There is another aspect of the matter. The obligation to pay additional excise duty u/s 7 is compulsory. 8. There is another aspect of the matter. The obligation to pay additional excise duty u/s 7 is compulsory. Pecuniary liability has been created therein Failure to pay within the time specified attracts penalty Therefore, in order to make any person liable to pay, much less a person who was not the owner when the liability to pay accrued, there must be clear words in the statute to bring about such a situation. As a corollary to this principle, the provisions should be strictly construed in favour of the person who is called upon to pay. Having read and re-read the definition of owner, we have come to the conclusion that the Corporation not be saddled with the liability to pay the impugned additional excise duty. 9. We now come to the legal effect of the General Manager of the Corporation continuing as the authorised controller even after July 3, 1971, the day when M/s. Ram Lakshman Sugar Mills vested in the Corporation (under Section 3 of the Acquisition Act). The Act is tor the acquisition of scheduled undertakings and such acquisition is by transfer of ownership of the scheduled undertaking to the Corporation. The Central Government has power under Sections 18-A and 18-AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 to assume direct control and management of scheduled undertakings in certain cases. This power can be exercised even after the acquisition of a scheduled undertaking under the Acquisition Act The powers under Sections 18-A and 18-AA are, therefore, unaffected and are kept intact inspite of the acquisition of the undertaking There WAS and there is no impediment in an undertaking with respect to which an authorised controller has been appointed u/s 18-A or 18-AA of ILR Act being acquired under the Acquisition Act. Therefore, the powers u/s 18-A and 18-AA can be exercised irrespective of the fact as to who at the relevant time is the owner of the undertaking The IDR Act is essentially concerned with the management and control of the industrial undertakings declared industries. Upon the acquisition and vesting of an undertaking in the Corporation, such an undertaking will nevertheless be under the control of the Central Government as envisaged by the provisions of the IDR Act. 10. Upon the acquisition and vesting of an undertaking in the Corporation, such an undertaking will nevertheless be under the control of the Central Government as envisaged by the provisions of the IDR Act. 10. Prior to July 3, 1971 the General Manager of the Corporation was the authorised controller of M/s. Ram Lakshman Sugar Mills On or before the said date the said Sugar Mills was a partnership concern and one Shri Maidhan Gupta was a lessee on behalf of the said partners We have indicated the functions of the authorised controller appointed under Sections 18-A and 18-AA of the IDR Act. Therefore, on or before July 3, 1971 the General Manager of the Corporation was managing the sugar factory of which the Corporation was not the owner. After July 3, 1971 the 'General Manager continued to be the authorised controller of the undertaking which vested in the Corporation As a result of the vesting in the Corporation on July 3, 1971 the Central Manager managed the undertaking (factory; not on behalf of the erstwhile owners of M/s. Ram Lakshman Sugar Mills but on behalf of the Corporation for the purposes of Clause (iii) of Section 2(e) of the Act. The character of the possession of the General Manager changed on July 3, 1971. Prior, to that day he was managing the factory for and on behalf of the erstwhile owners and on or after the said day he commenced the management of the factory for and on behalf of the Corporation. Therefore, the Respondents are not right in their stand that they are entitled to deduct the additional excise duty payable by the erstwhile owners of M/s Ram Lakshman Sugar Mills from the payment which were made or are to be made to the Corporation after July 3, 1971 through the authorised controller. The Petitioner has made it clear in its affidavits that all the amounts received in the account of M/r. Ram Lakshman Sugar Mills prior to July 3, 1971 were pot in the compensation pool of that undertaking. It has also been made clear that payments which accrued to the Corporation in relation to the undertaking acquired, namely. M/s. Ram Lakshman Sugar Mills have been kept in a different account and those payments having nothing to do with the payments received prior to July 3, 1971. 11. It has also been made clear that payments which accrued to the Corporation in relation to the undertaking acquired, namely. M/s. Ram Lakshman Sugar Mills have been kept in a different account and those payments having nothing to do with the payments received prior to July 3, 1971. 11. The petition succeeds and is allowed The communication dated 5th April, 1973 of the Superintendent, Central Excise, to the General Manager of the Corporation and the communication dated 8th September 1977 of Under Secretary, Central Board of Excise and Customs to the General Manager of the Corporation are quashed The Respondents are directed not to realise any excise duty u/s 7 of the Act from the Petitioner Corporation for the years 1968-69 and 1969-7G. 12. There shall be no order as to cost.