9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or consideration before this court in the matter of Sunil Parmeshwar Mittal v. Dy. (Recovery Cell), CE [2005 (8) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY], wherein the court took a view that liability of members is limited to the extent of face value of shares subscribed by each member and the amount remaining unpaid on them for time being, former director of the company cannot be held responsible for payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany known as M/s. Twin City Organics P. Ltd., which is now before the BIFR, in respect of which an order has been passed by the BIFR in respect of duty owed by the said company. The respondents had issued an order of attachment. That order had been given effect to, by attaching the flat which is the subject-matter of the present petition. 3. When the matter came up before this court for consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of criminal liability whereas duty is in respect of civil liability. Penalty imposed for breach of civil liability partakes of a different character from a criminal offence under section 9AA. This distinction has been noted and reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277/174 Taxman 571 (SC). 5. The settled position in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the opinion that duty demand of the company cannot be recovered from the director in the absence of statutory provisions in the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that another company known as Dyes Distribution India Ltd., which is/was also before the BIFR and in respect of which the penalty at Rs. 10,00,000 has been imposed personally on the dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
