2015 (12) TMI 1257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dent (AR) ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa The challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs imposed under Rule 209A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this is a third round of litigation. It is the submission that in the first round of proceedings, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,00 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llants. 4. After hearing both the sides, I fully agree with the learned advocate that the penalty originally imposed upon the appellant cannot be enhanced when the matter was remanded to him on the appeal filed by the appellant. The original penalty imposed was never challenged by the Revenue and the appellant cannot be put to a more disadvantageous position than the one he was in, at the time of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any way connected with the clandestine activities of the manufacturing unit. Merely because he was the General Manager for a limited period, cannot make him liable to penalty under Rule 209A unless there is evidence to show that such clandestine activity was being carried out with his knowledge and consent and under his instructions. As such, in the absence of any evidence, I find no reasons to i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X