S.R. Patel Vs. Collector of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....in the order that it cannot be said that there was misclassification of goods with intent to evade duty. the tribunal concluded their order with the finding that the appeal was accepted. this can only be taken to mean that the order insofar as the demand of duty and imposition of penalty of the company were concerned succeeded in full and the order to that extent was set aside. such being the finding of the tribunal on merits and on factors like misclassification of goods with intent to evade duty, a different view cannot be taken in regard to the role played by the manager who is the present appellant. there is no finding in the order that the manager played a more prominent role then that of the company and was accordingly blame-worthy warranting imposition of penalty on him.accordingly, we allow the appeal. we set aside the order imposing penalty on the present appellant and allow the appeal.

Judgment:

1. The appeal is filed by Shri S.R. Patel, Technical Manager of Dujodwala Industries challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 30,000/- imposed on him by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi under his Order-in-Original No. 27/90, dated 30-5-1990. Under his said order, the Collector had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs on the company M/s. Dujodwala Industries besides demanding duty of Rs. 57,97,096.82. In response to the notice of hearing, the appellant has sent a letter enclosing a copy of the Tribunal's Order No. 386/93-C, dated 6-12-1993 passed on the appeal filed by the company challenging the demand of duty and imposition of penalty on them. It is pointed out by the appellant that the main appeal of his employer company has been allowed by the Bench under the said order. He has requested that his appeal may also be allowed.

2. Shri M. Ali, ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the respondent Collector made a submission that the Tribunal's order in regard to the demand of duty and the imposition of penalty cannot be taken to mean absolving the present appellant of his complicity in regard to declaration of the goods necessary for proper assessment of duty. He advanced the plea that the present appeal may be decided independently.

3. We have considered the submissions. We have gone through the record and the order of the Tribunal, a copy of which has been submitted the appellant. We find that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the company and made certain observations in the order that it cannot be said that there was misclassification of goods with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal concluded their order with the finding that the appeal was accepted. This can only be taken to mean that the order insofar as the demand of duty and imposition of penalty of the company were concerned succeeded in full and the order to that extent was set aside. Such being the finding of the Tribunal on merits and on factors like misclassification of goods with intent to evade duty, a different view cannot be taken in regard to the role played by the Manager who is the present appellant. There is no finding in the order that the Manager played a more prominent role then that of the company and was accordingly blame-worthy warranting imposition of penalty on him.

Accordingly, we allow the appeal. We set aside the order imposing penalty on the present appellant and allow the appeal.