2001 (1) TMI 490 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the confirmation of duty demand by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Non-imposition of personal penalty on the companies involved.
3. Dispute regarding penalization for deliberate misdeclaration.
4. Corporate veil lifting for penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging Order No. 11/90 and Order No. 12/90 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming duty demands against M/s. New Tobacco Company Ltd. The demands were related to specific periods, and the Commissioner observed that penal provisions could not be enforced against the company for contraventions prior to 1-4-1984. The absence of mens rea during the relevant period was cited as a reason for not imposing penalties on the company. Duty liability was established based on different considerations, which were not contested in the appeal.

2. The Commissioner did not impose personal penalties on M/s. New Tobacco Company or M/s. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. due to the lack of a show cause notice issued to the latter. The Revenue did not challenge this reasoning in their appeals.

3. The Revenue contended that the companies should have been penalized for deliberate misdeclaration, but did not refute the Commissioner's reasoning. Regarding DAIL's involvement in manufacturing cigarettes under the name of M/s. NTC, the argument was made that penalties should have been imposed on DAIL. However, as no show cause notice was issued to DAIL, the Tribunal did not find merit in penalizing them.

4. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, stating that since no show cause notice was issued to DAIL, and the proceedings were solely against M/s. NTC, penalizing DAIL without proper notice was unwarranted. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's assessment that prior to 1-4-1984, M/s. New Tobacco Company was not involved, negating the need for penal proceedings against them. The concept of lifting the corporate veil to penalize DAIL was dismissed due to procedural shortcomings and lack of evidence.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata, in the context of duty demands, penalty imposition, and corporate responsibilities.