2017 (9) TMI 1311 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty u/r 26 - case of appellant is that appellant being the eldest daughter of the Managing Director, had no other option but to sign all the documents of the Company including the Central Excise related documents - Held that - In the statement of facts, it is mentioned that the concerned employees of the Company not only cheated her by mis-using their position, the Company also had to suffer embezzlement resulting in considerable financial loss as well as loss of reputation - the Adjudicating Authority had already penalized the Company by imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There is no material available on record to show that the appellant had conscious knowledge of the alleged irregularity. Therefore, the imposition of penalty on the appellant is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.05/HAL/2012 dated 20.02.2012
- Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the Company and the Director
- Allegations of irregularities and financial loss due to employee misconduct
- Appeal challenging penalty imposed on the Director

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.05/HAL/2012 dated 20.02.2012, where a demand of &8377; 2,13,095/- was confirmed against a Company along with penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, a Director of the Company, contested the penalties imposed on her, arguing that she was not actively involved in the business operations and was unaware of the irregularities. The Tribunal noted that the Company had already paid the entire amount of duty and penalty, and no appeal was filed by the Company. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to suggest that the Director had conscious knowledge of the alleged irregularities. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the Director was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In the detailed analysis, the Tribunal considered the appellant's submission that she was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the Company and had signed documents, including Central Excise related ones, only when necessary. It was highlighted that the Managing Director, the appellant's father, managed the Company's operations single-handedly for many years. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's claim that irregularities occurred due to employee misconduct and misuse of their positions, leading to financial loss and damage to the Company's reputation. Despite the penalties imposed on the Company and the Director, the Tribunal found no conclusive evidence linking the Director to the irregularities, leading to the decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the Director.

Overall, the judgment focused on the lack of evidence implicating the Director in the alleged irregularities, leading to the reversal of the penalty imposed on her. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing conscious knowledge and active involvement in such cases to justify penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision underscored the need for clear evidence before penalizing individuals in matters of regulatory compliance and financial misconduct.