2017 (3) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - initially the appellant was known as M/s. Standard Electrical Ltd. which are taken over by M/s. Havells India Ltd. and the appellant has merged with M/s. Havells India Ltd. - whether the penalty on M/s. Havells India Ltd. can be imposed? - Held that: - as there are contrary decisions on the issue, it would be in the interest of justice to refer the matter before the Larger Bench of this Tribunal.
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate- for the appellant Shri Harvinder Singh, AR for the respondent Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are during the period from 1.9.2003 to 31.3.2006, the appellant w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y Prasad Radhakrishna Prasad Pvt. Ltd.-1998 (102) ELT 705 (Tri.). 4. On the other hand, learned AR drew our attention to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Positive Packaging Industries Ltd.-2010 (249) ELT 57 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein it has been held that acquiring knowledge by the department does not take away the period of five years by law makers provided in the Central Excise Act, 1944 itself. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 6. In this case, the facts of the case are not in dispute. On merits, the appellant have no case. Plea of the appellant is that as investigation was completed on 13.11.2006. Thereafter the show cause notice was issued on 13.2.2009. Therefore, the demand is barred by limitation. It is also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ity, no case for penalty is made out under Ride 173Q read with any other rule of the Central Excise Rules. 8. There is contrary decision in the case of Madhoprasad Mahabirprasad (Supplies) Pvt.Ltd.-1989 (44) ELT 361 (Tri.) wherein this Tribunal has observed that "As to the argument that the present appellants had no hand in the management of the firm at the relevant period, we have only to observe that the penalty is on the firm and hence the question as to whether the persons who are incharge of the firm now were incharge at the relevant period is not very relevant. In the circumstances while we are of the opinion that the order may require to be modified with reference to quantum of penalty." 9. As there are contrary decisions of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X