2005 (9) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -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 9-12-1996. The appellants continued manufacturing activities of the erstwhile company as before. They have requested the Commissioner, Aurang .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 Customs & Central Excise, Vishakhapatnam v. M/s. Usha Iron & Ferro Metals Corpn. Ltd. reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 543 (Tribunal). It is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w 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 case on hand. 6. As far as obtaining the permission from the authorities concerned, there is abundant records on hand to the fact that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X