9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies Act, 1962. It is stated that the Company consisted of seven Directors, and the Writ Petitioner was the President of the Board of Directors. The Company was carrying on the business of manufacturing match sticks. A show cause notice, dated 6.4.1972 was issued by the Collector, Central Excise to the Company as well as petitioner stating that on 20.10.1971, when the Preventive Officers of Central Excise visited the premises, they found (i) 213 bundles of safety matches containing 5 grosses match boxes, (ii) two gunny bags, one containing 30 grosses match boxes and the other 20 grosses match boxes, (iii) 17.5 Kgs. of Potassium Chlorate packed in a gunny bag and (iv) one empty drum of potassium chlorate. Ultimately, it was found that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as such the levy of penalty on both the Company as well as the petitioner or any Officer of the Company is not contemplated by the rules and it amounts to levy twice over for the same contravention. It is further contended that Rule 221(2) is not concerned with levy of penalty and if Rule 173-Q is considered in isolation the levy of penalty can only be on one entity viz. the Company only. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government contends that ultimately the collection of penalty from the petitioner only is sustained and therefore there is no double levy. 5. Rule 173-Q to the extent relevant is as follows :- 173-Q. Confiscation and penalty. (1) If any manufacturer, producer or licensee of a Warehouse, (a) removes any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e seeking to levy penalty on Corporation as well as the petitioner, the president of the company, is not visualised by Rule 173-Q and such action is tantamount to levy of penalty twice over for the same contravention. This infirmity in the order of the primary authority is regularised by the appellate authority by confining the penalty to the petitioner alone. The learned Counsel treating this order as levy of penalty contended that the Company alone is liable for levy of penalty and the petitioner in any event cannot be implicated with such liability. 6. Rule 173-Q provides for confiscation and levy of penalty on the producer, manufacturer or the licensee and it cannot be controverted that the company is the manufacturer or the licensee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
