JUDGMENT : Leave granted. 2. M/s. Devki Steel (P) Ltd. was a borrower of the State Financial Corporation (SFC). It was also an alleged defaulter in payment of excise duty under the Central Excise, Act, 1944. The properties were auctioned by the SFC. In the auction, the properties were purchased by M/s. Prahlad Steel (P) Ltd., respondent No. 5, who in turn alienated the property to the present appellant. Further, the SFC also granted lease in favour of the appellant. 3. The short question involved before the High Court was whether the Excise Department was entitled to proceed against the property purchased by the present appellant as stated above in respect of non-payment of excise duty by M/s. Devki Steels (P) Ltd. At this stage, it may be clarified that the appellant purchased only land and building and not the plant and machinery. 4. Before the High Court, an important question of interpretation of Section 11 read with the proviso of the Central Excise Act arose for determination. Interpretation of Rule 230 also arose for determination before the High Court. None of these questions were decided by the High Court. It dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that the appellant herein was not the owner as the sale deed was not filed. 5. In our view, question of ownership was not in dispute. The pure question of law basically is whether the Department was entitled to proceed against the land and building purchased by the present appellant from the auction purchaser - M/s. Prahlad Steels (P) Ltd. in respect of the dues of M/s. Devki Steel (P) Ltd. One of the points which may also arise for determination is whether excise duty would be a charge on the property. That question, of course, was not raised before the High Court. However, we grant liberty to the Department to raise the said question also before the High Court subject to the Department making proper averments in that regard. 6. For the afore-stated reasons, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. We remit the matter back to the High Court by restoring Writ Petition No. 434/2005 on the file of the High Court for its disposal on merits. Since the matter is regarding the demand under the Excise Act, we expedite the hearing of the writ petition. For the afore-stated reasons, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. We remit the matter back to the High Court by restoring Writ Petition No. 434/2005 on the file of the High Court for its disposal on merits. Since the matter is regarding the demand under the Excise Act, we expedite the hearing of the writ petition. We request the High Court to decide the writ petition preferably within six months from today. Parties to complete their pleadings within four weeks from today. In the meantime, the Department will not take any coercive action to recover the dues from the present appellant till the hearing and disposal of the writ petition by the High Court in accordance with law. 7. Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed off.