2017 (6) TMI 577

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rs. 15 lakh each has been imposed on both of them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules and Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Brief facts are that:- i) one manufacturing Company namely M/s. Metalman Industries Ltd. (MIL) was found to be involved in evasion of Central Excise duty by clearing the goods without payment of duty as well as by violation of Rules etc. M/s. Metalman Industries Ltd. also fraudulently availed the cenvat credit of duty on inputs. The appellant namely, Shri Vijay Soni working as Joint Managing Director with M/s. Metalman Industries was found directly controlling the day to day activities and overall affairs of M/s. MIL. ii) The other appellant, Shri M S Rana was working as Manager (Excise) and Authoris .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issions and appeal memoranda on behalf of the appellants inter alia submits as follows:- (i) Both Vijay Soni and M S Rana worked merely as employees and salaried persons, and were paid for their duties as such, and had no interest in the company whatsoever. (ii) Both the appellants, Vijay Soni and M S Rana, who are no more employees of the Company, most respectfully submit that considering the facts, penalty imposed only on the basis of certain statements, may kindly be set aside. They have been merely following the orders of their superiors in the factory and were not having mens-rea for doing anything wrong, if at all. (iii) There is no evidence to show that appellants had personal knowledge of deliberate non payment of duty or invo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mpose penalty on account of his misfeasance and malfeasance as an employee of BHEL. Appellant as an employee could not have an existence independent of BHEL as far as Central Excise law is concerned. Appellant was only an employee of BHEL. He was not the person Incharge or was responsible for the conduct of the business of BHEL. Rightly the Commissioner has not proceeded against the appellant as a person who was Incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time when BHEL committed default in paying the duties as adjudicated upon by the earlier orders. Commissioner proceeded against the appellant under Rule 209A, which can apply only to a person who dealt with the contraband article, not as manufacturer. Appellant had no d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X