1996 (10) TMI 317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant. The appellant wrote to the jurisdictional Supdt. informing him about the change of ownership and asking for necessary changes in the L-4 licence. On 28-3-1990 the Supdt. amended the L-4 licence incorporating the proprietors as VXL in place of JCRM. Thereafter the unit carried on manufacturing activity. It made use of the Central Excise documents which were in use by the former and took over and cleared on payment of duty final products manufactured and pending clearance, utilised inputs lying in stock and otherwise took on all the assets and liabilities of the earlier owner. Notice was issued by the department contending that VXL ought to have obtained fresh L-4 licence and that it was not entitled to take Modvat credit on inputs, si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ge, and that an appropriate endorsement had been made in the L-4 licence. Therefore, from that date onwards VXL stepped into the shoes of the earlier owners for all purposes relating to Central Excise, such as payment of duty on finished goods, taking of credit, inheriting the balance in the PLA and Modvat account etc. This was particularly the case since VXL had given an undertaking to pay all the duty liability incurred by the earlier owner. He says that the matter is covered by a decision of this Tribunal in Sushripada Chemicals v. CCE, Surat (in Appeal E/839/96-Bom.) Order No. 1429-32/96-WRB, dated 25-4-1996. [1996 (88) E.L.T. 109 (Tribunal)] 4. The Departmental Representative contends that Rule 173 is very clear that on change ....