9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal rejected - E/525/2006 - 1026/2010 - Dated:- 20-7-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jayasankar A.K., Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri D.P. Nagendra Kumar, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original Nos. 51-52/2005-C.E., dated 31-12-2005/3-2-2006. 2. The appellant in this case has been penalized by the Adjudicating Authority under the provisions of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. The above mentioned penalty has been imposed upon the current appellant as the Ex-Managing Director of M/s. United Tropical Veneers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was the only person who could have benefited from such under valuation and collection of excess amounts. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. We find from the records that the Adjudicating Authority, while imposing the personal penalty on the current appellant, has recorded the following findings :- "2. The role of Shri K.S. Simon, the then Executive Director (upto 9-5-2003) has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Shri Simon has accepted the fact of under valuation and the collection of excess amounts over and above the invoice amounts. However, he was disputing the allegations that goods produced by UTVPL, were cleared under the invoice of UWI. Enough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He has to pay for his role and accordingly he is liable for personal penalty." 6.1 We find from the above recorded findings that it is undisputed as to the role of the appellant being the Managing Director of the Company during the relevant period. It is also seen that the evidences proved that excess amount has been collected by the persons authorized by the current appellant. It is also seen that during the period 1999 to 2003, the current appellant was the Managing Director and the demand of duty on the Company M/s. UTVPL is during the relevant period only. Since the charge of under valuation has attained finality (though by way of technical dismissal of the appeal filed by the Company), the current appellant being the Managing D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
