2018 (3) TMI 1047

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant is merely an employee and the issue on merits in respect of the company involved is of various provisions of 100% EOU and interpretation of overall EOU. It cannot be expected from an employee of the company to understand the entire provisions of EOU - penalty of 1 lakhs imposed on the appellant is harsh. Therefore, the same deserve reduction - penalty reduced to 10000/- - appeal allowed in p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... excise work from 06/11/2001. Appellant submitted that he was discharging the responsibilities entrusted to him in his capacity as an officer of the company. He was not involved in any nefarious activity and thus do not fall within the purview of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of ZU Alvi v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cumstances of the case and role of the appellant, we are of the view that penalty of ` 1 lakhs imposed on the appellant is harsh. Therefore, the same deserve reduction. Therefore, the penalty imposed is required to be reduced. Accordingly the penalty of ` 1 lakh imposed by the lower authority is reduced to ` 10,000/-. 6. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. (Pronounced in Court)
.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X