Personal penalty under Central Excise law requires conscious involvement; authorised signatory status alone was insufficient.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules cannot be sustained against an employee merely because he was the authorised signatory of the company. The order did not record any specific role, conscious involvement, or mala fide conduct by the appellant in the alleged clandestine removal, and it also did not show that he personally benefited from the activity. Acting under company instructions, without attribution of culpable participation, was insufficient to justify personal penalty. The penalty was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules could be sustained against an employee who was only the authorised signatory of the company and against whom no specific role or mala fide conduct in the clandestine removal was recorded.

Analysis: The penalty order did not discuss how the appellant was connected with the alleged clandestine removal. The appellant acted under the instructions of the company and no finding showed that he personally benefited from or ated in the offending activity. Mere status as authorised signatory, without proof of conscious involvement or attribution of mala fide conduct, was insufficient to justify a substantial personal penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained and was rightly set aside.

---