TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loys Castings Ltd. The Tribunal in the case of Tejas Net Works India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry [2013 (11) TMI 1415 - CESTAT CHENNAI], has set aside the penalties imposed upon the two employees on the ground that the penalty already stand imposed upon the company, thus, not justifying imposition of separate penalties on the employees - penalty on both employees set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem. In addition, separate penalty also stands imposed upon the CEO of the said company. 3. The appellants only contention is that they were salaried employees of the said manufacturing units and were working under the directions of the CEO. There is no separate role attributed to them by the lower authority so as to justify imposition of penalties. Ld. consultant for the appellant has placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rammaica (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 2006 (198) ELT 379 (Tri. Mum) wherein penalties imposed upon the employees were set aside on the ground that they were merely following the instructions of the employers / superiors and are not liable to penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. The said decision stands confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise, Pune - 2000 (116) ELT 608 (Tribunal), wherein under similar circumstances, the penalties imposed upon the employees in terms of provisions of Rule 26 stands set aside. 5. By following the above decisions, I set aside the penalties imposed on both the employees and allow their appeals with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced in open court on 03.11.2017) - - TaxTM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
