TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 6
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 was selling their goods from their depot but not paying duty on transportation cost from the factory to depot, An investigation was conducted in the factory premises of the appellant on 10.5.2006 wherein the said discrepancy was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d.-2002 (146) ELT A 313 (SC) and in the case of Flora Laboratories (P) Ltd.-2015 (323) ELT 182 (Tri.-Chennai). He submits that the demand is barred by limitation and accordingly the impugned order is to be set aside. In alternate, he submits that M/s. Standard Electrical Ltd. has merged with M/s. Havells India Ltd., therefore, the penalty on M/s. Havells India Ltd., the present appellant is not im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limitation. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that the appellant has paid duty alongwith interest and penalty is not imposable on the appellant. We find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not coming out whether the investigation was concluded on 13.11.2006 or not. In that circumstance, the facts of the case of Gammon India Ltd. (supra) are not applicable to the facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as under:- 5.3 Question would, however, remain whether the appellants would be liable to penalty under Rule 173Q. The adjudicating authority has not at all discussed the pleas regarding the previous management and the present management is not at all concerned. In the absence of any finding by the adjudicating authority, no case for penalty is made out under Ride 173Q read with any other rule ....