TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken over the unit and given an undertaking that they will take over all the liability of the company taken over. A show cause notice issued to the earlier company was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner after the company was taken over by the present management. In his order, he has confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-under Rule 96ZO(3) read with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Procedure. 2. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. There is also no request for adjournment. 3. The learned SDR submitted that the Tribunal s decision cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been wrongly quoted as the relevant para 5.3, read as under :- Question would, however, remain whether the appellants would be liable to penalty under Rule 173Q. The adjudicating authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not make a difference. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned SDR and I find that finding of the Tribunal s decision has been wrongly quoted and the Commissioner (Appeals) has only gone by the head note and has not looked into the relevant para, which speaks otherwise. Further, the penalty has been clearly imposed under Rule 96ZO (3), which was also mentioned in the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
