<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (2) TMI 246 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74568</link>
    <description>A successor company taking over a partnership business as a going concern may continue to claim proforma credit where the department has amended the existing licence, accepted continued manufacture, allowed transfer of stock and records, and required only a fresh bond. On these facts, the original permission for the same manufacturing activity and inputs was treated as continuing for the successor concern. The procedural requirements under the rule were therefore regarded as substantially complied with, and denial of credit solely because fresh permission was not obtained was unjustified. The successor was entitled to the credit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:19:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (2) TMI 246 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74568</link>
      <description>A successor company taking over a partnership business as a going concern may continue to claim proforma credit where the department has amended the existing licence, accepted continued manufacture, allowed transfer of stock and records, and required only a fresh bond. On these facts, the original permission for the same manufacturing activity and inputs was treated as continuing for the successor concern. The procedural requirements under the rule were therefore regarded as substantially complied with, and denial of credit solely because fresh permission was not obtained was unjustified. The successor was entitled to the credit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>