https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165217 In a regulated excise licensing scheme, clause 50 was construed purposively with the statute and the need for uninterrupted transfer between outgoing and incoming licensees, so prior fixation and payment of valuation were not a condition precedent to handing over possession; the takeover was therefore not illegal. The claim for restitution after expiry of the licence was rejected because the incoming licensee had lawfully entered possession and the challenge to the licence and valuation was no longer pressed. The outgoing licensee was, however, entitled to the balance amount found payable on valuation, together with interest from the court deposit. en-us Fri, 09 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165217 In a regulated excise licensing scheme, clause 50 was construed purposively with the statute and the need for uninterrupted transfer between outgoing and incoming licensees, so prior fixation and payment of valuation were not a condition precedent to handing over possession; the takeover was therefore not illegal. The claim for restitution after expiry of the licence was rejected because the incoming licensee had lawfully entered possession and the challenge to the licence and valuation was no longer pressed. The outgoing licensee was, however, entitled to the balance amount found payable on valuation, together with interest from the court deposit. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165217