9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 50 lakhs on the appellant in terms of provisions of Rule 209A. The appellant is a Chairman of one M/s. Ashok Fashion Ltd. In terms of the impugned order, duty of Rs. 4.50 crores stands confirmed against M/s. Ashok Fashion Ltd. along with imposition of personal penalty of an identical amount on the findings of clandestine removal. We are informed that the said company has not challenged the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of investigation, nowhere implicates the appellant and show him as the person involved in clandestine activity. There is also no other evidence on record to show that the clandestine activity were being undertaken with his permission or consent. As such, imposition of penalty under Rule 209A was not called for, in the absence of any evidence showing involvement of the appellant in the clan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, authentic signature of the appellant, as appearing in his income-tax return, pass-port, affidavit, etc. was compared with the alleged signature on the loose sheet and it was opined that the same were not his signature. In response to the above plea of the appellant, the adjudicating authority has observed that - "It is possible that if the signature is not in the hand-writing of Shri Dayaram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he company and as such a claim would no per se suffice to hold him liable to penalty under Rules 209A. For the above proposition, reference is made to Tribunal's order in case of Man Industries (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Indore - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 435 (Tri.-Del.). Further, in the case of EMCEE Crowns v. CCE, Bangalore - '2004 (113) E.L.T. 490 (Tri.), it was observed that the penalty cannot be imposed up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that it is almost settled law that in the absence of any evidence, bringing out any conscious act on the part of the Director or Chairman, penalty cannot be imposed merely because the assessee happens to be a Chairman of the company. Knowledge cannot be simply attributed to a person holding a particular post. 6. In view of our foregoing discussion, we find no justification for imposition of pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
