Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S S.N. Garg vs Cce, Allahabad on 2 March, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 2.3.2012
Excise Appeal No. 1480 of 2005
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. MP(33/2004-38/2004 Dem 89/2004 to 50/2004) 34 to 39,40,41a,41b,42s,42b to 49,50a,51 of 2004 dated 19.11.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad]
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No
3. Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
M/s S.N. Garg Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Allahabad Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for Appellant : Shri Kapil Vaish, C.A.
Appeared for Respondent : Shri R.K. Verma, A.R.
CORAM: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
Order No.dated.
Per Archana Wadhwa :
The challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty of Rs.1.00 lakhs imposed upon the appellant in terms of the provisions of Section 209A of the Central Excise Rules.
2. For better appreciation, we re-produce relevant paragraph from the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
From the statement dated 17.9.97 of Shri S.N. Garg recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944, it is seen that Shri Garg, a chartered accountant has worked with M/s Prashant Glass Works (P) Ltd. and later joined M/s Motiwala Industries (P) Ltd. As finance controller of M/s Motiwala Industries Ltd., he was assigned the work relating to day to day internal checking and control of financial matters of the company. Shri Mahesh Gupta, Director of M/s Motiwala Industries Ltd., Varanasi in his statement dated 18.7.97 stated that Shri Garg was assigned the work relating to purchase of raw materials and furnace oil and other requirement of the company for the manufacture of glass beads/tubings. Being associated with party no. 1, Shri Garg was well aware of the excisability and dutiability of glass tubings but while working with party no. 3 he was dealing with the accounts relating to the glass tubings being manufactured by an unregistered unit rendering the same liable for confiscation. Thus, he is held liable to penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the issue involved in the main case on M/s Motiwala Industries (P) Ltd. was the excisability of an intermediate product glass tubings and valuation of the same. The demand against the main manufacturer was confirmed for the period 1.3.94 to 28.2.2002. The appellant was working with the said company only for a limited period from 1.6.97 to 31.3.98. He cannot be held responsible for any misdeed of the companies so as to be imposed with penalty.
4. After hearing ld. DR, we find from the above reproduced paragraphs that there is no specific finding by the adjudicating authority against the appellant. Mere undertaking the work relating to purchase of raw materials and other requirements of the company cannot be held to be an offence covered under the provisions of Rule 209A unless there is a specific finding, based upon the evidence and the role played by the appellant. We find no reasons to uphold the said imposed penalty upon the appellant. The same is accordingly set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Mathew John) Member (Technical) RM