https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100569 Where an undertaking is transferred with contingent excise liabilities, recovery may proceed against the successor under the governing rule, and the original transferor had no locus standi to challenge that recovery. The transferor's appeal against the demand fastened on the successor was therefore not maintainable. On quantification, however, the Tribunal found that the claim of duty already paid on split yarn had not been properly verified from seized records; the demand could not stand without that factual examination. The matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh verification and reconsideration of the duty-payment records. en-us Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:26:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100569 Where an undertaking is transferred with contingent excise liabilities, recovery may proceed against the successor under the governing rule, and the original transferor had no locus standi to challenge that recovery. The transferor's appeal against the demand fastened on the successor was therefore not maintainable. On quantification, however, the Tribunal found that the claim of duty already paid on split yarn had not been properly verified from seized records; the demand could not stand without that factual examination. The matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh verification and reconsideration of the duty-payment records. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100569