TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (5) TMI 411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eby Sunrise would produce soaps on behalf of the latter. HLL supplied raw materials for Sunrise which would produce the soaps in accordance with the specification furnished by each other fixing on the finished goods each of its brand name. This arrangement was in force from 1987 onwards. Both parties were operating under Notification 304/77. An agreement was entered into between both the parties providing each for the lease of the factories of Sunrise by HLL with effect from 1-5-1988 for 10 years. Pursuant to this agreement, Sunrise asked the Department to transfer its Central Excise licence to HLL vide letter dated 23-6-1989. The Superintendent of Central Excise informed Sunrise and HLL, in reply that a licence had been issued in the name ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the appeal, the Collector has partially confirmed the proposals in the notice. He has accepted that no duty is payable to the extent of duty paid from PLA of Sunrise. He has however demanded from HLL the amount of duty paid out of Modvat and money credit balance as on 23-6-1989 as also out of such credit taken on inputs during the period in the notice. He has confirmed the demand for duty from Sunrise on finished goods lying in stock as on 23-6-1989 and duty equal to the credit taken on inputs received under Rule 57A and lying in balance on 23-6-1989 with Sunrise as also on goods under process of manufacture on 23-6-1989. He has disallowed the credit standing in the Modvat credit account of Sunrise and money credit under Rule 57-O prio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and penalty is not imposable. 5. The Departmental Representative contends that once the licence for the factory was no longer in the name of Sunrise whatever credit was in Sunrise's balance could not be utilised towards payment of duty by HLL. Since HLL had not filed a declaration under Rule 57G or 57-O for the period for which duty has been asked under Modvat credit or money credit could not be availed of or applied towards payment of duty on both. He otherwise adopts the reasoning in the Collector's order. 6. The letter dated 23-6-1989 of the Superintendent of Central Excise enclosed a licence in respect of the factory issued to HLL. From that day onwards, it was HLL which was according to Central Excise law the manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he successor company and asking it to make necessary goods in the records in the licence, PLA and proforma credit and other relevant paper could, in the facts of that case, be treated as a request for permission although there was no specific request for permission under Rule 56A. The same principles have been applied to Modvat credit in Sushripada Chemicals v. CCE - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 109. The Tribunal held that consequent upon the amalgamation of M/s. Sushripada Chemicals with M/s. HAP Chemical Enterprises the successor company to a partnership firm could avail of the Modvat credit lying in the partnership firm whose assets it took over. The same view has been expressed by the Tribunal in Saurashtra Chemicals v. CCE - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 379.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o HLL having utilised the balance in the PLA of Sunrise. In that situation, the only objection for not permitting Modvat credit is that a declaration was not filed. This is a procedural or technical requirement at the the most in these circumstances. The Tribunal has not accepted that credit in balance or earned by it could not be objected to on this ground. 8. The provisions of Rule 57G and Rule 57-O relating to filing of a declaration are almost identical. Rule 57G requires a manufacturer to intimate details of inputs whereas under Rule 57-O asks for details of minor oil and finished products to be intimated. There is therefore no reason as to why the money credit should be treated differently in so far as these aspects are concer....