Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Shree Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Shree Products vs Collector of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 04, 1996
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/9225

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shree Products

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(1996)(85)ELT138Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....with the registrar of companies on 19-2-1993 and as per the provisions of companies act, 19-2-1993 is the effective date of amalgamation. it is alleged by the department that the balance lying in the rg 23a part ii could not have been utilised by the unit after amalgamation without applying for transfer of credit in terms of rule 57h and the applicants should not have received inputs and availed modvat credit without filing a fresh declaration under rule 57g of the central excise rules after amalgamation. shree products ltd. are the manufacturers and they have filed declaration under rule 57g of the central excise rules. there was no interruption in production. it was a going concern which was amalgamated. the terms of amalgamation clearly indicate that the rights and liabilities are taken over. on a perusal of the rule 57g of the central excise rules, prima facie, we find that the requirement stipulated is that a declaration has to be filed by the manufacturer. in this case [shree] products ltd. being the manufacturer has already filed a declaration and the very same manufacturer has got amalgamated with the activities going on and even after amalgamation, the liability incurred by shree products ltd. continued to vest with the amalgamated company and so also the rights have accrued. in the context of the aforesaid factual position remaining undisputed, it appears that denial of modvat credit on the ground of non- filing of fresh declaration and also refusal of transfer of credit do no prima facie appeal to us. we, therefore, grant stay against recovery and waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount, on the applicants furnishing a personal bond covering the duty amount.

Full Judgment

1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 60,14,028.82 towards modvat credit sought to be disallowed. The applicants were receiving modvat inputs on filing declaration as Shree Products. This unit was amalgamated with Fidelity Industries Ltd. The terms of amalgamation were approved by the High Court of Madras on 22-1-1993. A certified copy of the High Court's order was filed with the Registrar of Companies on 19-2-1993 and as per the provisions of Companies Act, 19-2-1993 is the effective date of amalgamation. It is alleged by the Department that the balance lying in the RG 23A Part II could not have been utilised by the unit after amalgamation without applying for transfer of credit in terms of Rule 57H and the applicants should not have received inputs and availed modvat credit without filing a fresh declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules after amalgamation.

Shree Products Ltd. are the manufacturers and they have filed declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules. There was no interruption in production. It was a going concern which was amalgamated. The terms of amalgamation clearly indicate that the rights and liabilities are taken over. On a perusal of the Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, prima facie, we find that the requirement stipulated is that a declaration has to be filed by the manufacturer. In this case [Shree] Products Ltd. being the manufacturer has already filed a declaration and the very same manufacturer has got amalgamated with the activities going on and even after amalgamation, the liability incurred by Shree Products Ltd. continued to vest with the amalgamated company and so also the rights have accrued. In the context of the aforesaid factual position remaining undisputed, it appears that denial of modvat credit on the ground of non- filing of fresh declaration and also refusal of transfer of credit do no prima facie appeal to us. We, therefore, grant stay against recovery and waiver of pre-deposit of the duty amount, on the applicants furnishing a personal bond covering the duty amount.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial