Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.50 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
C.P. Chinnasamy vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 12 December, 2003
25. As regards imposition of penalty on the party, I find that the party has suppressed the fact of manufacture of Sim bags, carry bags and cartons and evaded the payment of duty leviable on the said goods during the year 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 (upto June 2006) and therefore the duty demanded is recoverable under proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Interest on duty not paid/evaded is also recoverable under section 11AB. The penalty is thus imposable under section 11AC of the Act, ibid, and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalty is also imposable on Shri B.D.Niyogi, Director of the noticee party under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as he was looking after day-to-day affairs of the company. Shri Niyogi being director of the company and responsible for running the affairs of the company under his control and supervision cannot escape his liability by taking plea that these activities were handled by the Executives of the company. The Honble Tribunals judgment in the case of C.P.Chinnasamy Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai reported in 2004 (164) ELT 449 (Tri.-Chennai) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. I, therefore, hold that Shri B.D.Niyogi is guilty of the offence committed by him and is liable to be punished under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
1