https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117073 The Tribunal upheld the lower order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal regarding the entitlement of Cenvat credit after a change in the company's name due to share acquisition. The decision emphasized that as there was no physical relocation of the factory or change in ownership, and the inputs/capital goods were not properly accounted for, the respondent did not require prior permission. The Tribunal found that the Department's satisfaction with the accountal of inputs during the registration amendment process supported the respondent's position, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. en-us Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jun 2017 12:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117073 The Tribunal upheld the lower order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal regarding the entitlement of Cenvat credit after a change in the company's name due to share acquisition. The decision emphasized that as there was no physical relocation of the factory or change in ownership, and the inputs/capital goods were not properly accounted for, the respondent did not require prior permission. The Tribunal found that the Department's satisfaction with the accountal of inputs during the registration amendment process supported the respondent's position, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117073