Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Indian Overseas Bank (Petitioner) seeking a direction to remove the attachment effected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (1st Respondent) on secured property belonging to a company (2nd Respondent).
• The court held that a sale certificate issued with known encumbrances cannot be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, and therefore, encumbrances cannot be removed at the request of the Bank without clearing the dues first.
• The petitioner argued that as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, they hold first charge over the debts and that the unsecured tax department (Crown's debt) should not have priority over the bank's dues.
• The petitioner relied on precedents stating that unless there is a specific provision in the Central Excise or Customs Act claiming "first charge," the claim of a secured creditor prevails over the Crown's debts.
• However, the court noted that Section 142-A of the Customs Act and Section 11(E) of the Central Excise Act do provide for the government dues to be a "first charge" on the property, save as otherwise provided in specific acts like SARFAESI.
• The court emphasized that the Bank failed to strictly follow the procedures under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Specifically, the Sale Certificate issued by the authorized officer explicitly listed the Central Excise attachment as a known encumbrance.
• Under Rule 9(6) and Rule 9(10), if the sale certificate mentions encumbrances, the purchaser is deemed to have bought the property with those encumbrances, and the Registering Authority is not empowered to remove them.
• The court applied the principle of "Caveat Emptor" (Buyer Beware), stating that since the auction notice and sale certificate disclosed the encumbrances, the third-party purchaser bought the property with knowledge of the dues owed to the tax department.
• Allowing the Bank to remove the attachment without clearing the dues would mislead the public regarding the status of the property for future alienation and would permanently deprive non-secured statutory creditors of their right to recover dues.
• The court concluded that the Bank is duty-bound to follow the statutory rules scrupulously to protect the interests of other creditors, and non-compliance disentitles them from seeking a direction to remove encumbrances.
• The writ petition was also considered premature as the Bank had not provided proof that the Sale Certificate was sent to the Sub-Registrar for registration, nor had they attempted to resolve the dispute through the Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of Disputes (AMRD) as per the Government of India Office Memorandum.

References: (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [p