2019 (10) TMI 1215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tative for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The appellant is an employee of the company namely; M/s Chandra Pretecto Ltd. The penalty of Rs. 10 Lacs under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was imposed upon appellant in connection with duty demand confirmed against M/s Chandra Pretecto Ltd. The demand against company was confirmed on the ground that the company had cleared the goods at .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to 07.05.2008, since the appellant was not employee during the relevant period, no offence can be attributed against the appellant. He placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Liladhar T. Khusiliani Vs. C.C.-Kandla 2015 (330) ELT 705 (Tri.- Ahmd.) 3. Sh. T.G. Rathod Ld. Joint Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X