9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided in favor of appellant. - E/239/2008, E/240/2008 & E/329/2008 - 40659-40661/2017 - Dated:- 21-4-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member Technical Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Advocate,for the appellants Ms. D. Naveena, Advocate (No.3) Shri S. Nagalingam, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar Since these three appeals emanate from the same impugned order, they are taken up together for common disposal. 2. The issue in dispute relates to the proceedings initiated by the Department against M/s. Angel Beauty Care (ABC in short), Proprietor Shri P. Prabhakaran, who were engaged in the manufacture of 'Talcum Powder', alleging that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/-, however without making any interference in the remaining part of the order of the original authority. Aggrieved, these three appellants are before this forum. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, ld. Advocate, Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, points out that Shri P. Prabakaran, Proprietor of the main appellant ABC has passed away on 15.10.2004 and hence proceedings in respect of ABC would therefore abate. In respect of Smt. P. Pushpam, ld. Advocate takes us to para 7.5 of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reproduced para 122 of the order of the original authority, where the role of Smt. P. Pushpam had been brought out:- 7.5 As regards penalty imposed on appellants No.2, the lower appellate authority in pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onate ground in the appeal. In respect of the third appellant Shri A.R. Hegde, ld. Counsel Ms. D. Naveena, submits that the role of this appellant was limited only to procure orders as per the directions of DMML and that he had no knowledge or role in the goings on in ABC or DMML. She also submits that penalty in respect of the employer DMML also has been fully set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the circumstances, penalty on Shri A.R. Hegde cannot survive. 4. On the other hand ld. AR Shri S. Nagalingam supports the adjudication and particularly states that Shri A.R. Hegde would have been in the know of all the issues, since he was holding the position of Manager (Operations) of DMML. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
