9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.The petitioner, who was working as S. A. S. Accountant in the office of the Accountant-General, Hyderabad, formed a company known as "The Khairatabad Ramprasad Khadi and Village Industries Association" under the Trading Companies Act, 1962. The company consisted of 7 directors and the petitioner was the President of the Board of Directors. It appears that subsequently he had resigned from the office of the President on account of some objections raised by the office of the Accountant General. 3.The factory of the Company was located in the A. C. Guards area in Hyderabad in the premises hearing No. 10-1-846 and the Company was carrying on business of manufacturing match sticks. While so, a show cause notice was issued by the Collector, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y serial numbers as required under Rule 171(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and as such Rule 71(4) has been contravened. 5. M/s. The Khairatabad Ramprasad Khadi Village Industries Association, L. 4 No. 2/69 (Matches) A. C. Guards, Hyderabad, have (a) removed the excisable goods in contravention of the provisions of the Rules cited above; (b) did not account for all the matches manufactured by them; and (c) contravened the provisions of Rules cited above with an intent to evade payment of duty." 4.In view of the foregoing facts it was found that the association and the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Rules 173F, 173G(1), 173G(2), 173G(4) and 71(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and accordingly the petitioner an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding of the Collector but setting aside the penalty imposed on the Association, and confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the petitioner. On a further revision by the petitioner to the Government of India, the Government reduced the penalty on the petitioner to Rs 7,000/- and dismissed the revision in other respects. 5.The petitioner now challenges these orders of the three authorities imposing the penalty. The first contention raised by Shri S. Suryaprakasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner was only the President of the Association and that it was the Company that was given a licence to manufacture the match boxes and therefore it is only the company that can be said to have violated the Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s incurred, in respect of the trade or business to which the declaration relates. This rule clearly makes the corporation as well as the person signing the declaration liable for the penalty imposed under the Act and Rules. 7.Shri Suryaprakasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought to contend that inasmuch as the corporation was exonerated from the liability for penalty, the petitioner cannot be made liable. But sub-rule (2) of Rule 221 makes both the Corporation as well as the person signing the declaration liable. In the instant case, the corporation should also have been made liable for the penalty, but the fact that the liability on the corporation was set aside would not in any way render the imposition of penalty on the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
