Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after amalgamation of a manufacturing unit with another company, Modvat credit could be denied for want of a fresh declaration and for failure to obtain transfer of credit.
Analysis: The manufacturer had already filed a declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules before amalgamation. The unit continued as a going concern without interruption in production, and the amalgamation terms provided for transfer of rights and liabilities to the amalgamated company. In this factual setting, the requirement under Rule 57G was substantially satisfied by the existing declaration of the same manufacturing entity, and the continuity of business supported the prima facie view that neither a fresh declaration nor denial of transfer of credit was justified.
Conclusion: The demand for a fresh declaration and the refusal to permit transfer of Modvat credit were not prima facie sustainable, and relief against recovery and pre-deposit was granted in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the same manufacturing activity continues as a going concern after amalgamation and the original declaration was filed by the manufacturer, Modvat credit cannot be denied merely because no fresh declaration was filed post-amalgamation.