Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 272 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of Excise duty alongwith interest and penalty - benefit of SSI exemption in view of the Notification No.08/2003 dated 01.03.2003 or as amended - clearance of goods with the brand name of others - settlement of case under SVLDRS-2019 - penalty on Director, managing director and general manager u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The declaration made by the Company for settlement of its case under the SVLDRS-2019 cannot be termed as admission of the case of revenue by the appellants. In the impugned order, it can be said to be the findings recorded by the Commissioner, against the appellants who are present here. The findings recorded are very general in nature without assigning any role to the appellants herein specifically. Also the issue was in relation to the ownership of the brand name which in any case belonged to the sister concern of Company at Goa, and is purely an interpretational issue without any mens rea. Even impugned order does not records any finding to that effect. As the issue of Company has been settled in terms of SVLDRS-2019, any observations in respect of the case of the Company is refrained. In the case of SHRI RAMESH DESHPANDE AND SHRI DEBDUTTA CHATTERJEE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR [2021 (7) TMI 1307 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where on similar facts, it was held that Since the impugned order fails to establish the ingredient of “mens rea” on the part of the Appellants who were otherwise performing their duties as employee of the company, the penalties cannot be imposed on the appellants in these two appeals. There are no merits in the impugned order imposing penalties on the appellants who were performing their duties within the company - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|