https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93854 The Tribunal held that the duty demand under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act was illegal and unsustainable. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts, were entitled to the notification benefit despite a change in the firm's constitution as the SSI registration remained in the same name. The authorities erred in denying the benefit solely based on the change in constitution. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the duty demand of Rs. 22,008.68 was set aside, providing relief to the appellants in accordance with the law. en-us Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:26:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93854 The Tribunal held that the duty demand under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act was illegal and unsustainable. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts, were entitled to the notification benefit despite a change in the firm's constitution as the SSI registration remained in the same name. The authorities erred in denying the benefit solely based on the change in constitution. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the duty demand of Rs. 22,008.68 was set aside, providing relief to the appellants in accordance with the law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93854