Independent appeal required against personal penalty; company's appeal cannot cure a Managing Director's separate challenge.

A separate personal penalty imposed on a Managing Director under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules could be challenged only by an independent appeal filed by him as a person aggrieved under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act. A company and its Managing Director are distinct legal entities, so the company's appeal could not substitute for or include the Managing Director's personal challenge to the penalty. As no separate appeal had been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), the challenge was not maintainable and the penalty remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal filed by the Managing Director was maintainable when no separate appeal had been filed by him before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis: Penalty had been imposed personally on the Managing Director under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, while the company had preferred its own appeal. The right of appeal under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is available to a person aggrieved by the adjudication order. A company and its Managing Director are distinct legal ivities, and an appeal by the company could not automatically substitute for or include the Managing Director's personal challenge to the penalty imposed on him. As no independent appeal had been filed by the appellant before the first appellate authority, the plea was not available in the present proceedings.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The personal penalty against the Managing Director remained undisturbed because he had not invoked the appellate remedy in his own capacity before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Ratio Decidendi: A person on whom a separate personal penalty is imposed must file an independent appeal as a person aggrieved under the statute, and an appeal by the company does not by itself confer maintainability on the individual's challenge.

---