Order Date – 15 June 2023

Parties: Rajesh Mangal Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Ahmedabad-iii

Facts – 

• The Appellant, Rajesh Mangal, is working as DGM Finance with M/s. Electrotherm (India) Ltd. A case was made out under a common show cause notice dated 31.05.2010 against M/s. Electrotherm (India) Ltd wherein, the appellant was also made a party.
• There was an excise duty demand proposed against the company M/s. Electrotherm (India) Ltd and a penalty under Rule 26 was proposed on the present appellant. Further vide Order-In-Original against the said order, the present appellant was imposed with a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002

Issue – 

• Whether penalty is rightly imposed on the appellant?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that there is a force in the counsel’s submission that from the record it appears that the major work related to removal of goods is looked after by one Shri S.G. Pathak and the appellant’s personal statement was not recorded. The statements which he has given to the investigating officer is on behalf of the Director accordingly, such statement can be used against the Director only and not anyone else.
• However, the appellant being worked as DGM Finance ultimately all the transactions are finally booked in the books of accounts and for which the appellant is responsible as he was aware with the transaction made without payment of duty.
• Therefore, the penalty is reduced from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 1 lac.

#Excise department work