TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The Appellant herein, Shri Anil Bhalla is aggrieved with the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) upon him by the impugned order of the Commissioner under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty against M/s. Bombay Handloo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsonal knowledge of the offence committed by the company. In the case of Santanu Ray v. Union of India [1988 (38) E.L.T. 264 (Del.)] the Hon ble Delhi High Court had held as follows :- So far as individual liability of a Director to the payment of excise duty and penalty is concerned, no liability can be fastened on him unless the Department is able to show as to how and to what extent a partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Appellant resigned from the directorship of the company after the offence of importing the goods without payment of duty had been committed. However, in the impugned order, nothing has been discussed by the adjudicating authority as regards the personal involvement of the Appellant. There, is no material on record to reflect upon his active involvement in the alleged offence committed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
