2017 (5) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../03/2006, the appellants were selling their excisable goods from their depot. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for short payment of Central Excise duty by non-inclusion of transportation cost from factory to depot. The case was adjudicated resulting in confirmation of Central Excise duty short paid and imposition of equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 31/01/2012 upheld the original order. The appellant preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. The Division Bench of the Tribunal, Chandigarh considered the appeal and passed the above interim order. 3. The facts of the case are not i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eadwith any other rule of the Central Excise Rules". 8. There is contrary decision in the case of Madhoprasad Mahabirprasad (Supplies) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 361 (Tribunal), 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 this Tribunal in the case of Marcandy Pra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble to indicate the extent by which penalty should be reduced We have the same to be decided at the time of re-adjudication". As can be seen from the above observations, the comments were relating to change of management. It is not clear what is the nature and scope of such change of management. It is also not clear as to whether the appellant's legal status as private limited company continued all throughout with only change in management personnel. In such a factual situation, the above observation of the Tribunal was made. 5. In Marcandy Prasad Radhakrishna Prasad Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Cal. - II reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 705 (Tribunal) there is no decision regarding liability to penalty on new management. Further, we also note the ....