9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides. 2. The present appeal is filed by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal dated 10-12-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Nagpur. 3. The appellants took over the company, namely, M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton (India) Ltd., (BBL), along with all assets and liabilities as per Court's Order dated 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of BBL and informed the Department vide their letter dated 25-8-1999. Thereupon, Show Cause Notice dated 24-12-1999 was issued as to why the said amount should not be demanded and recovered from the appellants under the provision of Rule 57-I/57U of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and why penalty should not be imposed? 4. The issue involved is squarely covered in the case of Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny, the question of denial of Modvat credit on the face of it is not warranted. That being the case, it cannot be said that a question of law has arisen in this regard. Accordingly, we reject the reference application . 5. In the instant case also, even there is change of management, the goods manufactured earlier and vehicles remain the same. Therefore, the aforesaid decision would apply to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
