TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterpretation of overall EOU. It cannot be expected from an employee of the company to understand the entire provisions of EOU - penalty of 1 lakhs imposed on the appellant is harsh. Therefore, the same deserve reduction - penalty reduced to ₹ 10000/- - appeal allowed in part. - APPEAL NO: E/378/2009 - ORDER NO: A/85356/2018 - Dated:- 8-2-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant submitted that he was discharging the responsibilities entrusted to him in his capacity as an officer of the company. He was not involved in any nefarious activity and thus do not fall within the purview of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of ZU Alvi v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2000 (117) ELT 69 (Tribunal) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ole of the appellant, we are of the view that penalty of ` 1 lakhs imposed on the appellant is harsh. Therefore, the same deserve reduction. Therefore, the penalty imposed is required to be reduced. Accordingly the penalty of ` 1 lakh imposed by the lower authority is reduced to ` 10,000/-. 6. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. (Pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
