2009 (1) TMI 691 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposition on authorized signatory.
2. Settlement Commission's decision and immunity granted.
3. Role of authorized signatory in fulfilling excise law obligations.

Issue 1: Penalty imposition on authorized signatory
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner's decision to set aside the penalty on the authorized signatory of the respondents. The Revenue argued that since the Settlement Commission settled only one show cause notice, immunity was not granted for the second notice. The Tribunal noted that the authorized signatory is responsible for fulfilling excise law obligations and should be fully aware of their actions. As the second show cause notice was not part of the settlement, the Commissioner should have assessed the authorized signatory's role. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000 on the authorized signatory.

Issue 2: Settlement Commission's decision and immunity granted
The Settlement Commission had settled a case related to one show cause notice, granting immunity to co-applicants. However, no immunity was granted for a second show cause notice involving a lesser amount. The advocate for the respondents cited a Tribunal decision to argue that since no penalty was imposed in the settled case with duty evasion over Rs. 8 lakhs, a penalty should not be imposed for the second notice with evasion less than Rs. 2 lakhs. The Tribunal, however, emphasized that the lack of immunity in the second case did not absolve the authorized signatory's responsibility under excise law, leading to the imposition of a penalty.

Issue 3: Role of authorized signatory in fulfilling excise law obligations
The Tribunal highlighted the crucial role of the authorized signatory in ensuring compliance with excise law obligations. It was emphasized that the signatory's active cooperation and involvement are essential to prevent duty evasion. Given the signatory's responsibility, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to assess whether a penalty should be imposed, especially when a case was not settled by the Commission. Consequently, the Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's decision and imposed a penalty on the authorized signatory for their involvement in the non-settled case.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of penalty imposition on the authorized signatory, the Settlement Commission's decision and immunity granted, and the role of the signatory in fulfilling excise law obligations.