Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2000 2000 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 141 to 160 of 391 Records

• 2000 (4) TMI 458
  
  Issues:
  Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, Calculation of assessable value under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, Assessment of manufacturing cost for HDPE and PVC pipes.
  
  Classification of Goods:
  The appellant manufactured rigid HDPE and PVC pipes and fittings classified under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3917. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty. The appellant disputed the claim, arguing that the goods should be classified under Chapter 84 instead of Chapter 39. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reevaluate the tax liability based on a previous decision and dismissed the argument that the pipes were part of a Sprinkler Irrigation System.
  
  Calculation of Assessable Value:
  The assessable value of manufactured goods should be calculated under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, excluding duty paid on inputs. The Commissioner did not apply this rule, citing a previous Tribunal decision pending in the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reassess the tax liability based on the Tribunal's decision. The Commissioner was instructed to follow the law laid down by the Tribunal.
  
  Assessment of Manufacturing Cost:
  The appellant provided details of manufacturing costs for HDPE pipes, including raw materials, labor, profit margin, etc. The Commissioner rejected the data and fixed the manufacturing cost and assessable value without supporting evidence. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's assessment lacking acceptable data and remanded the matter for reevaluation based on Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, remanding the issue for a new decision with a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to be heard.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 445
  
  Issues:
  1. Challenge to Order-in-Original No. 34/MP/90/Addl. Collr./SRT dated 18-12-1990.
  2. Determining if the activity of recording and selling video cassettes amounts to manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
  
  Issue 1: Challenge to Order-in-Original No. 34/MP/90/Addl. Collr./SRT dated 18-12-1990
  
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was initiated by the Revenue challenging the correctness of Order-in-Original No. 34/MP/90/Addl. Collr./SRT dated 18-12-1990. The Revenue alleged that the respondents were involved in recording blank video cassettes obtained from various sources and supplying recorded video cassettes for a fee. The Additional Collector had initially dropped the proceedings based on a previous Tribunal decision. However, a subsequent order from the Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs directed the Revenue to appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was filed in August 1999.
  
  Issue 2: Determining if the activity of recording and selling video cassettes amounts to manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, 1944
  
  The department, relying on a Supreme Court decision, argued that the preparation and sale of pre-recorded audio cassettes constitute a manufacturing process under the Central Excise Act, 1944. They contended that the Additional Collector erred in dropping the adjudication proceedings against the respondents. The Supreme Court case cited by the department involved the sale of pre-recorded audio cassettes, distinguishing them from blank cassettes. The Court considered recording audio material onto cassettes as a manufacturing activity. However, the Tribunal noted that if a person records audio onto a cassette provided by a customer and charges for this service, it is considered a service activity, not manufacturing. The Tribunal analyzed the activities of the respondents based on the statement of a witness, concluding that the respondents were not selling pre-recorded video cassettes but were providing a service of recording cassettes for customers at their request. Therefore, the Tribunal determined that the activities fell under the category of service activity, not manufacturing. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Additional Collector and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
  
  This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues involved and provides a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision on each issue, maintaining the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 444
  
  Issues:
  1. Challenge of central excise duty payment on vertical blinds manufactured and cleared during specific years.
  2. Whether the process of assembling vertical blinds constitutes a manufacturing activity liable to central excise duty.
  3. Interpretation of exemption notification for goods made without the aid of power.
  4. Classification of vertical blinds under central excise duty tariff heading.
  5. Time-barred demand for excise duty and correct computation of the duty amount.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The dispute in this case revolves around the payment of central excise duty on vertical blinds manufactured and cleared during specific years. The central issue is whether the process of assembling vertical blinds amounts to a manufacturing activity subject to central excise duty.
  
  2. The appellants contested the duty demand on the grounds that assembling vertical blinds is not a manufacturing activity liable to central excise duty. They argued that the processes involved in creating vertical blinds, such as cutting materials and stitching, do not constitute manufacturing. Additionally, they claimed eligibility for exemption under a notification for goods made without the aid of power.
  
  3. The interpretation of the exemption notification was crucial in this case. The appellants argued that the term "made" in the notification does not equate to manufacturing as perceived by the central excise authorities. They contended that the exemption should apply only if all processes are completed without the aid of power, highlighting a distinction in wording compared to other notifications.
  
  4. Another issue was the classification of vertical blinds under the central excise duty tariff heading. The appellants asserted that vertical blinds were not liable to duty during the relevant period and that a mistaken classification under a specific tariff item did not automatically render the goods dutiable.
  
  5. The time-barred demand for excise duty and the correct computation of the duty amount were also contentious points. The appellants argued that the demand was inflated and incorrectly calculated, emphasizing that the assessable value should be determined after deducting central excise duty and other taxes as per the Central Excise Act.
  
  6. The tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the vertical blinds constituted manufactured goods subject to central excise duty. The tribunal rejected the appellants' arguments regarding the exemption notification, classification under the tariff heading, and time-barred demand. However, it agreed with the appellants on the correct computation of the duty amount, remanding the case for a fresh calculation in compliance with the law.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 443
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the Appellant regarding the determination of the Annual Production Capacity of a re-rolling mill. The Tribunal found that a change in the 'd' factor from 225 mm to 203 mm affected the production capacity calculation. As a result, the Tribunal held that last year's production figures were not relevant, and the current year's capacity of 3051 M.Ts was deemed the correct annual production capacity. The Appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 442
  
  The applicants filed a misc. application seeking direction for refund sanction by the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal had allowed their appeals, but the refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal found the Assistant Commissioner's order appealable and rejected the misc. application, stating the applicants could challenge the order before the competent authority.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 441
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi heard an appeal filed by the revenue against an Order-in-Appeal related to a case involving the manufacture of biscuits and the utilization of Modvat scheme benefits. The respondents opted for full exemption from central excise duty under Notification 1/93 but were later found to have utilized credit after crossing the exemption limit, leading to a demand confirmation by the adjudicating authority. The appeal was allowed, but the Revenue argued that the credit lapsed when the respondents opted out of the Modvat scheme. Citing a case from the Allahabad High Court, the Revenue's appeal was upheld, setting aside the previous order.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 440
  
  Issues:
  Appeal against denial of Modvat credit on Rubber Sleeves and Wool felts.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeals arose from the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur's order denying Modvat credit on Rubber Sleeves and Wool felts. The Asstt. Commissioner adjudicated four Show Cause Notices, ruling the items were not inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these orders.
  
  2. The appellants' counsel argued that Rubber Sleeves and Wool felts are crucial for manufacturing glass shells, the final products. The manufacturing process involves quality control to ensure defect-free glass shells. Rubber sleeves are used in a Pumice machine to remove defects from raw glass panels, while wool felts are used in a rough machine for fine finishing. The counsel contended that these items are essential inputs for the final product and should qualify for Modvat credit under Rule 57A.
  
  3. The counsel further argued that the disputed items were not accessories but inputs essential for finishing the glass shells. They cited precedents and Tribunal decisions to support their claim that Rubber Sleeves and Wool felts should be considered eligible inputs for Modvat credit under Rule 57A.
  
  4. The Respondent's defense was based on the view that the items were consumed in the manufacturing process without becoming part of the final product, thus not qualifying as inputs under Rule 57A. They also argued that the exclusion clause in Rule 57A covered accessories, including Rubber Sleeves and Wool felts, as parts of machines.
  
  5. The Tribunal analyzed the exclusion clause in Rule 57A in the context of previous decisions. Following the Union Carbide case, it was held that parts or accessories of excluded items would be eligible for Modvat credit. Citing precedents like Leader Engineering Works and CCE v. Sarada Plywood Industries, the Tribunal concluded that items used for finishing the final product are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A.
  
  6. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the impugned order and ruling that Rubber Sleeves and Wool felts are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The Appellants were granted consequential relief as per the law.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 439
  
  The appeal by M/s. Engineers and Consultants P. Ltd regarding the classification of bogie side frames under Heading 73.08 or 86.07 was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 86.07 based on previous decisions and rejected the appeal as no one appeared on behalf of the appellants.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 438
  
  Issues involved: Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 120/91-C.E. dated 5-4-1991 of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding whether boughtout items supplied to customer's site are to be charged to duty as integral products of machines.
  
  Summary:
  The dispute in this case revolves around whether boughtout items supplied to customer's site are to be charged to duty as integral products of machines. The Revenue contends that such supply of boughtout items at the customer's site amounts to the manufacture of complete machines and seeks restoration of the duty and penalty imposed. On the other hand, the respondents argue that mere collection and separate sale of boughtout items does not constitute manufacture, citing various legal precedents and circulars to support their position.
  
  The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and records of the case and found merit in the appeal for several reasons. Firstly, the Revenue's ground of appeal on the dutiability of goods emerging at the customer's site was deemed beyond the scope of the original charge in the show cause notice, making it invalid. Secondly, if goods become excisable only at the customer's premises, duty could only be levied by the proper Central Excise Officer at that site. The Tribunal also noted that no assembly or erection of the boughtout items was done in the respondent's factory, distinguishing this case from that of a car manufacturer using boughtout items to assemble a full car.
  
  Furthermore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in following the Board's circulars and case laws on boughtout items. It was established that boughtout items installed at the customer's premises are not included in the value of excisable goods cleared from the manufacturer's factory. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, finding no compelling reason to interfere with the order-in-appeal.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 437
  
  Issues:
  Availability of benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 to the respondents in respect of unbranded goods.
  
  Analysis:
  The appellants, engaged in manufacturing plastic jars under TH 8509 of the CETA bearing the brand name "Rallimix," were also producing unbranded goods like plastic caps, rings, lids, and jar-bases. The Assistant Collector denied them the SSI exemption for unbranded goods used in branded products. The Collector (Appeals) reversed this decision, stating that the unbranded goods were not affected by para 7 of Notification 175/86. The Revenue appealed this decision to the Tribunal.
  
  None appeared on behalf of the respondents during the hearing, and the Tribunal proceeded with the appeal. The Revenue argued that unbranded goods used with branded products should not receive the SSI exemption. However, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence supporting this claim.
  
  The Collector (Appeals) provided detailed reasoning for overturning the Assistant Collector's decision, concluding that the unbranded goods were manufactured and cleared independently, without a direct connection to the branded "Rallimix" goods. As a result, the unbranded goods were deemed eligible for the benefit of Notification 175/86. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no grounds for interference.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, ruling in favor of the respondents regarding the availability of the SSI exemption for the unbranded goods manufactured by them.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 436
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled on the classification of outer casings for air-conditioners. The casings were considered parts of air-conditioners and classified under Heading No. 84.15, making the appellant ineligible for small scale exemption. The appeal by M/s. Dynamic Industries was rejected as the casings were essential for installing air-conditioners.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 435
  
  Issues:
  - Failure to produce entitlement certificates within stipulated period
  - Validity of denial of benefit under Notification No. 60/88
  - Rejection of certificates produced by the appellants
  - Claim for adjustment of duty against the duty payable on newsprint
  - Legality of the impugned order confirming duty demand and penalty imposition
  
  Issue 1: Failure to produce entitlement certificates within stipulated period
  The appellants failed to produce entitlement certificates issued by the Registrar of Newsprint within the required period of one month from the date of clearances, as mandated by Notification No. 60/88, dated 1-3-1988. Despite attributing the delay to processing time at the Registrar's office, their request for condonation was rejected. The Assistant Commissioner had previously condoned delays for earlier periods, but the appellants did not challenge the rejection. Consequently, the Commissioner rightfully demanded duty amounting to Rs. 20,24,780 on goods cleared without payment of duty in April 1995.
  
  Issue 2: Validity of denial of benefit under Notification No. 60/88
  The appellants claimed entitlement under Notification No. 60/88, allowing exemption on newsprint quantities authorized by the Registrar of Newspapers for India. However, the certificates they produced were deemed invalid. The certificates did not bear the appellants' name as the scheduled Indigenous News Print Mill, rendering them ineligible for the exemption. The Commissioner correctly denied the benefit of the notification due to the appellants' failure to comply with the mandatory requirements.
  
  Issue 3: Rejection of certificates produced by the appellants
  The certificates submitted by the appellants were scrutinized and found inadequate for claiming exemption under Notification No. 60/88. None of the certificates were in the appellants' names, preventing them from legally clearing newsprint at nil duty rate. The language of the notification was deemed clear and mandatory, emphasizing strict compliance with the specified conditions. Legal precedents reinforced the principle of interpreting fiscal statutes without room for interpretation, supporting the Commissioner's decision to reject the certificates.
  
  Issue 4: Claim for adjustment of duty against the duty payable on newsprint
  The appellants argued for adjusting duty against the duty payable on newsprint by reversing the credit availed on inputs used in manufacturing. However, the Commissioner rightly dismissed this claim as the appellants had cleared goods at nil duty rate without paying duty initially. Rule 57-C of the Central Excise Rules mandated credit allowance only for products exempt from excise duty or charged at nil rate. The appellants did not pursue refund claims under Section 11-B, justifying the disallowance of duty adjustment.
  
  Issue 5: Legality of the impugned order confirming duty demand and penalty imposition
  Considering the facts and circumstances, the Commissioner's order confirming duty demand and imposing penalties was deemed legally valid. The Commissioner's decision was upheld as the appellants failed to comply with notification requirements, rendering them ineligible for exemption. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the correctness of the impugned order.
  
  This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, the parties' arguments, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind confirming the duty demand and penalty imposition in the case.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 434
  
  Issues:
  1. Apportionment of value of glass bottles and plastic crates to the value of aerated water for assessable value calculation.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi revolved around the issue of whether the value of glass bottles and plastic crates should be apportioned to the value of aerated water for the purpose of calculating the assessable value. The Appellant argued that since aerated water manufacturers claim 100% depreciation on glass bottles, the cost of these items should be included in the assessable value. The Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the depreciation is claimed for income tax purposes only, and industry practice indicates that glass bottles are used for an average of five years. The Respondent also cited a case where rental charges were not included in assessable value. The Tribunal noted that glass bottles and plastic crates are not sold with the aerated water, and industry practice suggests a lifespan of five years for these items. Consequently, the Tribunal held that a point of law arises regarding the apportionment of value based on the average lifespan of the bottles and crates. The Tribunal re-formulated the question to address this issue specifically.
  
  In the detailed analysis, the Appellant's representative argued that the cost of glass bottles and plastic crates should be added to the value of aerated water due to the 100% depreciation claimed by manufacturers. The representative emphasized that since the depreciation covers the entire cost in one year, it should be proportionately added to the value of aerated water. On the other side, the Respondent's consultant contended that the depreciation claimed is for income tax purposes and that industry practice supports a five-year lifespan for glass bottles. The consultant also highlighted a previous case where rental charges were not considered in assessable value. The Tribunal considered these arguments and observed that glass bottles and plastic crates are reused in the industry for approximately five years, aligning with the depreciation value under the Companies Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found that a point of law arises regarding the apportionment of value based on the average lifespan of these items. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the Reference Application, emphasizing the need to re-formulate the question for consideration by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex issue of apportioning the value of glass bottles and plastic crates to the value of aerated water for calculating the assessable value. The differing perspectives presented by the parties led to the Tribunal's decision to re-formulate the question to clarify the treatment of these items based on their average lifespan in the industry.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 433
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld the classification of signal conditioning amplifiers as per a previous decision. The appeal filed by the Revenue for the period from 1-11-1991 to 23-2-1992 was dismissed.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 432
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside a duty demand of Rs. 3,10,551/- on Brass Scrap. The Tribunal found that the process of cleaning Brass Dross did not result in a new excisable commodity, citing a previous decision in a similar case. The penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the appellants was also overturned.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 431
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai ordered waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a case concerning abatement claim calculation. The tribunal found the calculation criteria used by the Commissioner of Central Excise to be different from the trade notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Indore. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration in line with the trade notice, directing the Commissioner to hear the appellants before passing a new order.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 430
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata condoned the delay in filing an appeal by the appellants against a decision communicated by the Deputy Commissioner regarding duty liability under Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as no opportunity for a personal hearing was granted to the appellants. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, ensuring the appellants have a fair chance to represent their case.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 411
  
  The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal against an order in a case involving abandoned cargo in containers at Kandla Port Trust. The petitioner was advised to seek remedy in Civil Court for claiming containers, as there was no contract with the shipping company or port trust. The court cited previous cases to support its decision.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 406
  
  Issues:
  Dispensation of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalty confirmed by Collector (Judicial), Calcutta-II Collectorate. Adjudication based on alleged suppression of production and clandestine removal without payment of duty. Restoration of appeal and stay petition dismissed for non-prosecution. Arguments for and against unconditional waiver of pre-deposit based on financial hardship and merit of the case.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Dispensation of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalty
  The appellant, M/s. Dunlop India Limited, sought dispensation of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,89,82,357/- and penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- confirmed by the Collector (Judicial) of Central Excise, Calcutta-II Collectorate. The allegations were based on discrepancies between the Progressive Moulding Register (PMR) and RG 1 production records, indicating clandestine removals without payment of duty. The appellant denied the allegations, claiming physical control of the factory during the material time made evasion impossible. The Tribunal observed arguable merits on both sides due to variations in production figures and granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit considering the financial condition of the appellants.
  
  Issue 2: Adjudication based on alleged suppression of production and clandestine removal
  The show cause notice alleged that the appellant suppressed production of tyres and clandestinely removed them without paying Central Excise duty. The discrepancies in production records and excess raw material receipts supported the allegations. The appellant disputed the figures, arguing that RG 1 production figures exceeded those in the PMR, questioning the reliability of the show cause notice. The Order-in-Original confirmed the duty and imposed the penalty, leading to the appeal and stay petition. The Tribunal found the case arguable on merits, pending final disposal of the appeal.
  
  Issue 3: Restoration of appeal and stay petition
  The appeal and stay petition filed in 1992 faced dismissal for non-prosecution in 1999 but were later restored by the Tribunal. The stay petition was taken up for disposal in 2000, where the appellant's counsel highlighted discrepancies in production figures and lack of proof for clandestine removals. The Revenue's representative supported the impugned order, opposing the unconditional waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal, considering the arguable merits and financial hardship faced by the appellants, granted unconditional waiver of the duty and penalty, allowing the stay petition and scheduling the appeal for hearing after eight years.
  
  This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta, highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the dispensation of pre-deposit, adjudication based on alleged violations, and the restoration of the appeal and stay petition.

  ---

• 2000 (4) TMI 405
  
  Issues:
  - Dispute over Modvat credit utilization due to change in company name and registration certificate.
  
  Analysis:
  The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA addressed the issue of Modvat credit utilization in a case where the Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The dispute arose when the Assistant Commissioner denied Modvat credit to the respondents, arguing that the credit was earned under the old name of the company, which had changed its name and registration certificate. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, emphasizing that a change in the company's name does not affect its rights and obligations as a juristic person. The Commissioner held that surrendering the old registration certificate was not necessary, and the Modvat credit declarations filed earlier were valid.
  
  The Revenue contended that the change in the registration certificate indicated the cessation of the previous company under the old name. They argued that the new company should have followed Central Excise procedures, which were not adhered to. However, the respondents' advocate pointed out that a similar appeal by the Revenue against the same respondents was rejected by the Tribunal previously. The Tribunal had ruled that a mere change in company management or amalgamation does not extinguish the right to utilize earned Modvat credit.
  
  Considering the submissions, the Tribunal referred to various legal precedents, including decisions by the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, which emphasized that a change in the company's name without a change in ownership does not automatically transfer ownership rights. In the present case, where the management remained the same despite the name change, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, citing consistency with previous rulings and the valid reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). The cross objection filed by the respondents was also disposed of in line with the Tribunal's decision.

  ---

1 ....456789101112........ 20