TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby penalty on the present respondent was set aside. 2. The respondent is the Director of M/s. P.J. Steels (P) Ltd. The premises of M/s. P.J. Steels was visited by the revenue officer and it was found that there was certain shortage in their final product. Duty was demand from M/s. P.J. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods as he was looking after all the works relating to the unit. 5. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is no finding by the adjudicating authority regarding his specific role which needs to evasion of Central Excise Duty. The contention is that immediately after visiting the Central Excise Officer, the respondent wrote a letter objecting to the method adop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any manner deals with any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable for confiscation is liable to penalty. The Tribunal in the case of J. Mitra Co. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 524 set aside the penalty on the Director which was imposed on the ground that the Director being overall incharge of the firm is liable for penalty. The Tribunal held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
