ROOPCHAND PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three writ petitions are taken up for analogous hearing as they involve the same order in original. The three writ petitioners are individuals who feel aggrieved by the imposition of penalty made in the order in original. The order in original received consideration by the Court in W.P. No. 529 of 2018 (M/s. V.K. Udyog Limited Vs. Union of India and Anr.). Such writ petition was at the instance of a company where the three writ petitioners were involved as Managing Director, Director and Manager. The three writ petitioners before me are natural persons involved in the affairs of such company.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not applicable so far as the petitioners are concerned. He draws the attention of the Court to the show cause notice. He submits that, the impugned show cause notice is vague. He refers to the order in original and submits that, the order in original records the contentions of the petitioners. It does not attend to such objections raised by the petitioners. It proceeds to impose a penalty which it cannot do. He submits, once an entity is found to be a trader, such entity cannot be made a manufacturer for the purposes of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the petitioners are persons who are sought to be proceeded against in respect of transactions where the provisions of the Act of 1944 are not attracted, the proceedings are bad in law. Consequently the imposition of penalty is bad in law.

(3.) The respondents are represented.