9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 870 - HC - Central ExciseImposition of penalty - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in negating the penalty imposed on Shri Arvind Kapoor, Managing Director of the Unit, in view of the specific malafide role attributed to him - Held that - Tribunal took note of the fact that the revenue is against the impugned order of the Commissioner whereby, he had dropped penalty proceedings against the respondent, Managing Director of one M/s Rishiroop Rubber (I) Ltd. against whom demand duty of ₹ 14,734/- stood confirmed. The Tribunal has further noted that M/s Rishiroop Rubber (I) Ltd. had also challenged the said order and the Tribunal by its order dated 07.01.2004, allowed the appellant s plea and set aside the impugned order. Having regard to the fact that the main appeal stood allowed, the Tribunal held that the revenue s plea for imposition of penalty on the Managing Director cannot be accepted - Tribunal in the case of M/s Rishiroop Rubber (I) Ltd., the revenue had preferred an appeal before this court being 2015 (11) TMI 318 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . By an order of even date, the said appeal has been dismissed. Under the circumstances, when the main appeal has been dismissed, there is no question of interfering with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on the question of penalty on the Managing Director. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to the negation of penalty imposed on Managing Director. Analysis: The judgment concerns an appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the key question of law was whether the Tribunal was justified in negating the penalty imposed on the Managing Director of a company. The Tribunal noted that the revenue was against dropping penalty proceedings, but the Tribunal allowed the company's plea and set aside the impugned order. Subsequently, the revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, since the main appeal was dismissed, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision regarding the penalty on the Managing Director. As a result, the appeal was deemed to fail and was dismissed accordingly.
|
