1990 (10) TMI 80 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner, an authorized signatory of the company, can be proceeded against for alleged violations committed by the company.
2. Whether the service of the show cause notice on the petitioner was proper.
3. Whether the allegations in the show cause notice against the petitioner constitute a basis for penalty proceedings under Rules 173Q(l)(d) and 198 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The petitioner contended that as an Excise Consultant and not an employee or officer of the company, he cannot be held liable for the company's violations. However, the Collector determined that the petitioner, being an authorized signatory of the company, was more akin to an official of the company rather than a mere consultant. The Collector relied on evidence such as the power of attorney executed by the company in favor of the petitioner, authorizing him to represent the company before Central Excise Officers. The court upheld the Collector's finding that the petitioner was not merely an authorized representative but an official of the company, subject to penalty under Rule 198.

Issue 2:
The petitioner raised an objection regarding the service of the show cause notice, alleging it was not served as per Section 35C. The Collector rejected this contention, emphasizing that the petitioner had been provided with a copy of the show cause notice and had filed multiple writ petitions with the notice attached. The court agreed with the Collector's decision, stating that any defect in service, if present, was not substantial enough to warrant interference at that stage.

Issue 3:
The petitioner argued that the show cause notice lacked specific allegations against him for penalty proceedings under Rules 173Q(l)(d) and 198. The court noted that this objection was not raised before the Collector during previous proceedings. However, the court opined that if the petitioner was deemed an official of the company, he could be held responsible for false or misleading information provided by the company under Rule 198. The court emphasized that the extent of the petitioner's liability would need to be determined in subsequent proceedings by the Collector.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the need for expedited legal proceedings without unnecessary delays. The court directed that the proceedings continue according to law, highlighting the importance of prompt resolution for all parties involved.