Manufacturer-linked excise exemption could not survive dissolution of the partnership and transfer to a successor company.

Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was tied to the manufacturer and the conditions in clause 4 and its provisos. A partnership firm and a successor company were separate legal entities, and an excise licence was personal to the licensee; on transfer of business, a fresh licence was required under Rule 178(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Because the partnership was dissolved, its privileges and exemption benefit lapsed, and the company could not claim continuity merely by taking over the factory, assets and liabilities. The earlier exemption was therefore not available to the company.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant company could continue the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. after the dissolution of the partnership firm and takeover of its assets, liabilities, and factory, and whether the earlier exemption availed by the partnership could be treated as continuing in favour of the company.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was linked to the manufacturer and the conditions in clause 4 and its provisos. The partnership firm and the company were separate legal entities. The earlier excise licence was personal to the licensee and could not be transferred; on transfer of business, a fresh licence was required under Rule 178(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the partnership was dissolved, its privileges and benefits lapsed, and the company, which obtained a fresh licence later, could not claim continuity of the exemption merely because it took over the factory and assets. The cited precedents did not apply on the facts.

Conclusion: The appellant company was not entitled to continue the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.; the denial of benefit was upheld.

---