9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1542, 1736 of 2012 - A/53860-53861/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 12-6-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Ashok K Arya, Member (Technical) Shri Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants Shri H C Saini, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per: Ashok K Arya The appellants namely, Shri Vijay Soni, Joint Managing Director of M/s. Metalman Industries Ltd. (MIL), and Shri Manohar Singh Rana, Manager (Excise) and authorised signatory are in appeal against order in original No.42/2012 dated 9.3.12 wherein inter alia penalty of ₹ 15 lakh each has been imposed on both of them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules and Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Brief facts are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . MIL under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The impugned order has imposed penalty of ₹ 15 lakh each on present appellants. v) The appeal filed by the assessee M/s. MIL has been dismissed on account of non-prosecution by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 52839/2017 in Appeal No. E/1541/2012-(DB) vi) Now the present two appellants Shri Vijay Soni and Shri M S Rana are before the Tribunal. 3. With above facts, all parties, represented by Shri Ashok Kumar, learned advocate for the appellants, and Shri H C Saini, learned DR for the Revenue have been heard. 4. Learned Advocate based on written submissions and appeal memoranda on behalf of the appellants inter alia submits as follows:- (i) Both Vijay Soni and M S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. MIL, we refer to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Z U Alvi V/s CCE, Bhopal 2000 (117) ELT 69 (Tribunal) and O.P. Agarwal V/s CC, Kandla 2005 (185) ELT 387 (Tri-Delhi) wherein it was observed that employees carrying out orders given to them are not liable to penalty. The Tribunal in the case of Z U Alvi (supra) observed as under: 2. Appellant has been proceeded against as an employee of BHEL. A reading of the impugned order would show that the appellant was responsible for effecting payment of Central Excise duties to the Government which was payable by BHEL. So the Commissioner appears to have proceeded against the appellant to impose penalty on account of his misfeasance and malfeasance as an employee of BHEL. Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly gives instructions regarding supply of the raw material (plastics) to processors and Dinesh Thakur gives instructions for supply of raw material. Being employees of the Company, they are carrying out the orders given to them. As held by this Tribunal in the case of Z.U. Alvi v. CCE, Bhopal, - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 69 (T) , Appellants as employees could not have an existence independent of Company. They are not the persons in-charge or were responsible for the conduct of the business of the Companies. They had no dealings with the impugned goods otherwise than in their official capacity as employers of the Companies who indulged in malpractices. In view of this penalty under the provisions of Customs Act is not imposable on both Shri Dines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
