A.K. TANTIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal, filed by Sh. A.K. Tantia, against imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/ -.

(2.) SHRI K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Additional Commissioner, in Order -in -Original No. 23/99, dated 2 -6 -99, confirmed the demand of duty against M/s. Best Board Ltd. besides imposing penalty; that the Additional Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - on the appellant, who is a Managing Director of M/s. Best Board Ltd. under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The learned Advocate submitted that the appellant has no role in the running of the company, except the inter -action and liaising with the Financial Institutions and BIFR; Rule 209A requires that the person, should have knowledge and reasonable belief that the goods are liable for confiscation; that penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant in absence of specific allegation in show cause notice and clear findings in the impugned order. He relied upon the decision in the case of I.T.C. Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE, 1998 (304) E.L.T. 151 (T) = 1998 (28) RLT 323 (Cegat) and Sh. Anil Bhalla v. C.C., 2001 (138) E.L.T. 883 (T), wherein, it has been held that in absence of any discussion by the Adjudicating Authority as regards personal involvement of the Managing Director penalty cannot be imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Autolite (India) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur, 2002 (146) E.L.T. 345 (T).

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments Shri P.M. Rao, learned D.R. submitted that Shri Prem Shankar Gupta, President of M/s. Best Board Ltd. has deposed in his statement dated 5 -9 -97 that the production pattern was always in the knowledge of the Director and Managing Director; that Shri Prem Shankar Gupta in a reply to a question that the appellant being the Managing Director of the Company would have guided in all matters relating to finance, marketing, sales, etc., Shri Gupta has answered that he was Managing Director having over all control on all affairs of the company and, therefore he was controlling the above activities. He therefore contended that the evasion of the Central Excise duty cannot be carried out by the company without the knowledge of the Managing Director.