2003 (8) TMI 322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tia, against imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Additional Commissioner, in Order-in-Original No. 23/99, dated 2-6-99, confirmed the demand of duty against M/s. Best Board Ltd. besides imposing penalty; that the Additional Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant, who is a Managing Director of M/s. Best Board .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... naging Director penalty cannot be imposed under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Autolite (India) Ltd. v C.C.E., Jaipur, 2002 (146) E.L.T. 345 (T). 3. Countering the arguments Shri P.M. Rao, learned D.R. submitted that Shri Prem Shankar Gupta, President of M/s. Best Board Ltd. has deposed in his statement dated 5-9-97 that the production p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty. Shri Prem Shankar Gupta had connection with Sh. A.K. Tantia only to the extent of production pattern and not to the extent of clearance pattern of the goods from the factory. It is settled law that before the penalty can be imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Department has to prove that the person concerned was dealing with the goods with the knowledge that the go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X