2023 (7) TMI 658 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - suppression of facts - appeal filed by the Company only not by the Director in his individual capacity - Non-mentioning of the Company s name - typographical error - HELD THAT - On perusing the Form EA-1 filed by the Appellant, it is seen that each and every page of this Appeal has been signed by Jugal Kishore Kaushik as a Director signing the Appeal for M/s Vikas Forge Pvt. Ltd. Apart from this, in the EA 1 Serial No. 6 (iii), it is clearly indicated that the amount of duty of Rs.1,27,720/- is being contested. Therefore, it is clear that this Appeal is filed by the Company only not by the Director in his individual capacity. Non-mentioning of the Company s name at Serial No. 2 could be on account of typographical error. If the Commissioner (Appeals) had carefully looked at these details, he would not have come to the erroneous conclusion. It is clear that the Appellant Company had filed their Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was erroneously taken by him as an Appeal filed by the Director - matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the Appeal filed by the present Appellant i.e. Vikas Forge Pvt. Ltd. against the duty of Rs.1,27,720/- confirmed against them in the OIO No. 13/AC/CE/HND-I/ADJN/2014 dated 27.02.2014. Since in the OIA passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the penalty imposed against the Director has already been set aside, it is not open for the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider this issue for disposal - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Confirmation of demand of duty, imposition of personal penalty, appeal filed by company, appeal filed by director, remand to Commissioner (Appeals), setting aside penalty against director.

The judgment pertains to a case where the Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand of Rs.1,27,720 against the Appellant Company for clandestinely clearing 20,000 Kgs of goods without payment of duty. Additionally, a penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed on the Managing Director of the Company. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the issue involved suppression of facts to evade duty and decided to uphold the demand of duty along with interest and penalty on the company. However, an appeal was filed against the personal penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed on the director.

Upon reviewing the documents, it was noted that the Appeal was signed by the Director on behalf of the Company, contesting the duty amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously interpreted the appeal as being filed by the Director individually, leading to a misunderstanding. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal was indeed filed by the Company, and not by the Director personally. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to properly decide the appeal filed by the Company against the confirmed duty demand.

Since the penalty against the Director had already been set aside in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, it was deemed unnecessary for further consideration. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice and resolve the issue within three months from the date of the Order. Ultimately, the Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

(Separate Judgment delivered by Judge R. Muralidhar, Member (Judicial))