https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3111 Cenvat credit already accrued before a merger could not be denied merely because the stock of inputs was taken over by the successor company. The first appellate authority's reasoned order was upheld because it recorded that intimation had been given regarding the stock and that the stock was eligible for credit. In the absence of any contrary legal or factual material from the Revenue, there was no basis to disturb those findings. The Tribunal also noted that a merger carries existing assets and liabilities, and the Revenue's objection under Rule 8(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 did not succeed on the record. en-us Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3111 Cenvat credit already accrued before a merger could not be denied merely because the stock of inputs was taken over by the successor company. The first appellate authority's reasoned order was upheld because it recorded that intimation had been given regarding the stock and that the stock was eligible for credit. In the absence of any contrary legal or factual material from the Revenue, there was no basis to disturb those findings. The Tribunal also noted that a merger carries existing assets and liabilities, and the Revenue's objection under Rule 8(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 did not succeed on the record. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3111