2006 (7) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. [Order per : T.V. Sairam, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon the ratio of the two decisions of this Tribunal relating to penalty imposable under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 209A reads as follows :- Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... only on account of the role in fraudulent availment of credit cannot be upheld. 3. In another case Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 321 (Tribunal) = 2005 (71) RLT 203 (CESTAT-Mumbai) this Tribunal s decision cited for the proposition that it is well settled position that Corporation has no mind of its own and therefore no penalty can be imposed under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a person would include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not . It is, therefore, difficult for us to subscribe to the views expressed by the Bench in Indian Roadways Corporation Ltd. s case (supra), which had held that corporation, which has no mind of its own cannot be penalized under Rule 209A. 6. In our opinion, the ratio of the decisions of both Sha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X