2009 (4) TMI 610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The appellant was working under the instructions of the company and not being benefited by any other clandestine activity of the company should not be penalized on the sole ground that he was authorized signatory of the company during the relevant period. We find no justification for imposition of huge penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs upon the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 705 (Tri-Del.) as also upon the Tribunal s decision in case of M/s. R.K. Ispat Udyog v. CCE, Raipur as reported in 2007 (211) E.L.T. 460 (Tri-Del.), learned advocate submits that the appellant being an employee of the company and not concerned with the policy decisions, penalty should not be imposed upon him. 2. After appreciating the above submission and after he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X