https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202922 A successor in business was held not liable for excise duty or reversal of Cenvat credit for a period before the proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was inserted, because the recovery provision authorising action against a successor was not in force for that earlier period. The demand was treated as based on an amendment effective only from 10.09.2004, and the earlier statutory framework did not permit recovery from the successor. The confirmation of duty and related liability was therefore set aside, and liability could not be sustained under Section 11 or Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002. en-us Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202922 A successor in business was held not liable for excise duty or reversal of Cenvat credit for a period before the proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was inserted, because the recovery provision authorising action against a successor was not in force for that earlier period. The demand was treated as based on an amendment effective only from 10.09.2004, and the earlier statutory framework did not permit recovery from the successor. The confirmation of duty and related liability was therefore set aside, and liability could not be sustained under Section 11 or Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202922