https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88216 Change in ownership of a manufacturing unit did not, by itself, defeat Modvat credit where the excise authorities had already been informed, the licence was amended, and the inputs, final products and manufacturing process remained unchanged. The fresh declaration requirement under Rule 57G was treated as procedural rather than substantive in these facts, and the later amendment to Rule 57F(7) did not control the earlier position. As no prejudice to revenue was shown, and the department's inconsistent treatment of PLA balance and Modvat credit supported the assessee, the successor was entitled to take and utilise the credit and denial was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:38:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88216 Change in ownership of a manufacturing unit did not, by itself, defeat Modvat credit where the excise authorities had already been informed, the licence was amended, and the inputs, final products and manufacturing process remained unchanged. The fresh declaration requirement under Rule 57G was treated as procedural rather than substantive in these facts, and the later amendment to Rule 57F(7) did not control the earlier position. As no prejudice to revenue was shown, and the department's inconsistent treatment of PLA balance and Modvat credit supported the assessee, the successor was entitled to take and utilise the credit and denial was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88216