9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 218-219/ANS/GGN/2008 dated 1-10-2008 by which insofar as the present appellant is concerned, the penalty of ₹ 1.00 lakh imposed by the original authority was sustained. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the appellant as Assistant Manager (Logistics) was in charge of Spare Parts Division of M/s. HMSIL. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order stands fully paid by them. The appeal is against sustaining of penalty against the present appellant. He submits that the appellant is an employee of the company; that he was not the principal officer; that though he was in charge of Spare Parts Division, he was not aware that such re-labelling and re-packing amounted to manufacture. The officers visited the Spare Parts Division and menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds liable for confiscation. The finding of the original authority for the purpose of imposing penalty on the appellant was that he was responsible for entire manufacturing operation and as a senior person of company, he was supposed to be well aware of the Central Excise law, rule and procedure. On finding of this failure, penalty was imposed by the original authority. I also find that the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
