9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Both the appeals are filed by the Revenue who is aggrieved with the impugned Order No. 11/90 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, vide which he has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,04,34,455.00 (Rupees three crore four lakh thirty-four thousand four hundred fifty-five) and with the impugned Order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served as under :- Notwithstanding the scheme of arrangement the penal provisions as distinguished from the demand of Central Excise duty could not be enforced against NTC, the transferee company, in so far as the contraventions prior to 1-4-1984 are concerned. It is seen that M/s. New Tobacco Company Ltd. were a wholly owned subsidiary of DAIL for the period from 1-4-1984 to 6-3-1986. For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Tobacco Company on different considerations, which are not in challenge before us. 2. As regards non-imposition of personal penalty on M/s. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., the Commissioner has observed that no show cause notice was issued to the said Company. As such, no action has been taken against the same. 3. The Revenue in their Memos of Appeals, apart from submitting that the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
