Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through Section 9 AA of the Central Excise Act and submitted that under this provision of law, a person can be held vicariously liable for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act only if at the time of commission of offence, he was in-charge of and was responsible for the conduct of business of the accused company and every Director or person connected with the company shall not fall within the ambit of Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act. Learned counsel argued that in the instant case, but for a vague allegation that the petitioner was the Director of the accused company M/s Office Machines Pvt. Ltd. and in-charge of day-to-day affairs of the company, there is no specific allegation which could, prima facie, show as to how and in what manner the petitioner was in-charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company and what duties and functions were being discharged by him so as to bring him within the ambit of Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act. Learned counsel argued that even in the pre-charge evidence, there is no specific averment to bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act to hold him vicariously responsible for the alleged offence of excise duty evasion committed by the accused company M/s Office Machines Pvt. Ltd. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged for quashing of charge as well as complaint qua the petitioner.

7. I have perused the rival contentions and material on record.

8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be useful to have a look on Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act, which was earlier known as Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Section is re-produced thus:-

"Section 9AA - OFFENCES BY COMPANIES.
(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly :

11. Legal position which emerges from the aforesaid is that in order to rope in a Director of a company as accused of an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act vicariously with the aid of Section 141 N.I. Act, the complainant is not only required to make a specific allegation that the person concerned was the Director of the company but he is also required to make specific allegation of fact indicating as to how and in what manner the said Director was in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Since the language of Section 9AA(1) of Central Excise Act is exactly similar to Section 141 N.I. Act, the same principle of law would apply to the Director of the company in order to hold him vicariously responsible for an offence committed by the company under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act.

14. Section 9AA(2) of the Central Excise Act provides that notwithstanding Section 9AA(1) of the Central Excise Act where an offence under the Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent of or in connivance with or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer etc., such Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. There is no allegation in this regard either in the complaint or in the pre-charge evidence, therefore the case of the petitioner also does not fall within the ambit of Section 9AA(2) of the Central Excise Act to make him responsible for the offence of evasion of excise duty committed by the company.