SURINDER KR. GARG Vs. CCE, GURGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a careful examination of the records and on hearing both sides, I find that this case requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Therefore, I allow the present application unconditionally and proceed to dispose of the appeal on its merits.

(2.) The appellant was one of the Directors of M/s Delta Insecticides Ltd. at the material time. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.4,87,131/ - against the company and imposed on them a penalty of equal amount. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs.4,80,000/ - on the director (present appellant) under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944, on the basis of a finding that the appellant had indulged in acts of omission and commission in contravention of various provisions of the Central Excise Rules. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, both the Company and the Director preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals). While those appeals were pending, the Company chose to go in for settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and obtained an order of settlement on 23.4.99. Accordingly, the entire dispute pertaining to the company in relation to duty and penalty stood settled under the Scheme on payment, by the company, of an amount of Rs.1,43,566/ -. The factum of this settlement in respect of the company was recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in her Order dated 21.8.2000. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the question relating to penalty imposed on the present appellant and found that the penalty had been correctly imposed on him under Rule 209A. However, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the quantum of penalty to Rs. 3,00,000/ -. In the present appeal before me, the appellant is aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate authority.

(3.) I have heard both sides.