Successor liability for excise duty fails where no enabling provision existed during the relevant period.

The Tribunal found that, during the relevant period, no provision existed to enable the Revenue to demand excise duty from the successor, and the proviso introduced with effect from 10-09-2004 was inapplicable. The HC found no error in that factual and legal conclusion and held that there was no basis to interfere with the Tribunal's view. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed and the Tribunal's order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue could demand excise duty from the successor in the absence of a provision in force during the relevant period, and whether the Tribunal's finding on that aspect warranted interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded that, during the relevant period, no provision existed enabling the Revenue to demand duty from the successor. The subsequent proviso, introduced with effect from 10-09-2004, was held to be inapplicable to the case. The Court found no error in that factual and legal conclusion and saw no basis to interfere.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld.

---