2010 (7) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and remanded the case back to the tribunal. - 96 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2010 - CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the respondent ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 35(G) of the Central Excis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent could not be absolved of the liability to pay penalty, though in absence of proof of individual role, penalty personally imposed on the Director was not called for. However, the penalty was reduced only on the ground that the amount was high. The relevant observations are:- ".......We, therefore, do not agree with the contention that Rule 173 Q (1) (bbb) cannot be invoked against the appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t for, it should be interpreted in the context of the organization to which the individual belongs. However, we notice that the investigation has not brought out any evidence mens rea against the role played by the Managing Director of the unit in his individual capacity and since no finding has been made out against him, we do not find any merits in invoking Rule 209A for imposing penalty on him. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X