2013 (6) TMI 143 - HC - Central Excise

Personal Penalty - Cenvat Credit - Shortage of inputs and final products - differences in stock - held that - The finding of fact recorded by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the CESTAT is that Shri Pankaj Chovatia, authorized signatory of the company was engaged in the day-to-day business of the company and said Mr. Pankaj Chovatia in his statement had stated that the credit was availed on the inputs without receiving such inputs as per the directions of Shri Dipesh Gosalia, son of Hansa Gosalia. The finding of fact recorded by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the CESTAT is that the appellants were aware of the developments taking place in the company and, therefore, the appellants are liable for penalty. The argument of the appellants that Shri Bharat Parekh and Ghansyam Bharti were looking after the day-to-day business of the company is a wholly inconsistent stand taken for the first time in this appeal and without any basis.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of penalty under Section 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 confirmed by CESTAT.

Analysis:
The judgment in question revolves around the imposition of a penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the appellants who were directors of a company found to have contravened provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excise Act, 1944. The company, Gosalia Emultech Private Limited, was discovered to have fraudulently taken credit of duty on inputs without actually receiving them, resulting in a duty demand and penalty. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on each appellant under Rule 209A. The appeal against this penalty was dismissed by CESTAT, leading to the present appeals challenging the decision.

The main argument raised by the appellants was that they were not involved in the day-to-day business of the company, and other individuals were responsible for the operations. However, the court found this argument unconvincing based on the facts. The adjudicating authority and CESTAT had established that the appellants were aware of the fraudulent activities within the company. It was noted that the authorized signatory of the company had admitted to availing credit on inputs without actually receiving them under the directions of one of the appellants. The court rejected the appellants' claim that other individuals were managing the business without any substantiation.

Consequently, the court upheld the decision of CESTAT, stating that the appellants were indeed liable for the penalty due to their awareness of the unlawful activities within the company. The judgment concluded by dismissing both appeals and ordering no costs to be paid by either party. The case highlights the accountability of directors in cases of contravention of legal provisions by the companies they oversee, emphasizing the importance of diligence and oversight in corporate governance to avoid legal repercussions.