DAYARAM AGARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present appeal is imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on the appellant in terms of provisions of Rule 209A. The appellant is a Chairman of one M/s. Ashok Fashion Ltd. In terms of the impugned order, duty of Rs. 4.50 crores stands confirmed against M/s. Ashok Fashion Ltd. along with imposition of personal penalty of an identical amount on the findings of clandestine removal. We are informed that the said company has not challenged the impugned order. As such, we are not concerned with the confirmation of demand or imposition of penalty on the said company or on the other directors.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Sudhir Kumar Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Samir Chitkara, learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue.

(3.) IT is seen that the appellant, right from the beginning, has taken a categorical stand that during the material time, though he was chairman of the company, but he never participated in any of the affairs of the company and was not involved in day -to -day affairs. He was residing at Kolkata and as a head of the family, his name was added as a Chairman of the company to increase goodwill. It has been further contended that the various statements of the buyers recorded during the course of investigation, nowhere implicates the appellant and show him as the person involved in clandestine activity. There is also no other evidence on record to show that the clandestine activity were being undertaken with his permission or consent. As such, imposition of penalty under Rule 209A was not called for, in the absence of any evidence showing involvement of the appellant in the clandestine activity. It has also been contended that the statement of Shri Rajubhai Thakkar, employee of the company, relied upon by the adjudicating authority, revealing that the signatures appearing on the loose sheet are of the appellant, is not in accordance with the law, inasmuch as the adjudicating authority has himself accepted the hand -writing experts opinion that the signatures are not of the appellant.