1992 (11) TMI 111 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Directors and Officers of a Public Limited Company to be made liable for penalty under Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The judgment in question revolves around the issue of whether Directors and Officers of a Public Limited Company can be held liable for penalties under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioners, who are Directors/Executives of a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacturing activities, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune. The notice alleged contraventions related to excise duty payments and sought penalties amounting to a significant sum. The petitioners contended that the notice was incorrectly served on them as they were not the manufacturers of the excisable goods in question, and therefore, not liable for the penalties under the Central Excise Act. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, emphasizing that the liability for excise duty payment and penalties rests with the manufacturer, which in this case was the Public Limited Company. The Court highlighted that the legal entity of the Company shields its Directors from personal liability unless specifically provided by statute. The judgment referenced a prior decision supporting this interpretation, reinforcing the principle that penalties cannot be enforced against individuals without a clear legal basis.

The Department argued that the functions of the Company are carried out by the Board of Directors and Executives, making them liable for penalties. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that penal liability must be explicitly provided for in the law. The Department also referred to Rule 209A, enacted after the period in question, to support their position. The Court dismissed this argument, noting that the rule cannot be applied retrospectively and did not align with the circumstances of the case. Additionally, Rule 209A pertained to individuals involved in removing excisable goods with knowledge of liability for confiscation, which was not the case here. The Court firmly concluded that Rule 209A did not apply to the facts presented, further undermining the Department's position.

Lastly, the Department urged the Court to refrain from intervening under Article 226 of the Constitution and allow the Collector to adjudicate the matter. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing its duty to address jurisdictional issues. Citing a previous decision, the Court reiterated that when a show cause notice lacks jurisdiction, relief must be granted. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, striking down the show cause notice against them while allowing the Department to proceed against the Company. The judgment clarified that this decision did not impede the Department's actions against the Company and concluded without awarding costs to either party.