https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342298 The note addresses whether penalty can be imposed on a successor or amalgamated company after takeover, and whether cited coordinate bench rulings created a conflict requiring a Larger Bench reference. It explains that one decision concerned a different management-change fact pattern and did not lay down a binding rule on successor liability, while the other was a single-member decision without a concluded ratio on penalty in such circumstances. It also notes that, on amalgamation, the transferor company stands dissolved without winding up and penalty lies only against the person liable in law. On that basis, it states that no true coordinate bench conflict existed and the matter was returned to the referring Bench for decision on merits. en-us Mon, 03 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342298 The note addresses whether penalty can be imposed on a successor or amalgamated company after takeover, and whether cited coordinate bench rulings created a conflict requiring a Larger Bench reference. It explains that one decision concerned a different management-change fact pattern and did not lay down a binding rule on successor liability, while the other was a single-member decision without a concluded ratio on penalty in such circumstances. It also notes that, on amalgamation, the transferor company stands dissolved without winding up and penalty lies only against the person liable in law. On that basis, it states that no true coordinate bench conflict existed and the matter was returned to the referring Bench for decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342298