Personal penalty on directors requires specific findings of individual role; company penalty upheld on mutuality of interest.

A penalty on a company was upheld where the record showed that the two units were not independent, there was financial nexus beyond a principal-to-principal relationship, and the units did not deal at arm's length. By contrast, penalties on directors were set aside because personal liability cannot be fastened merely from association with the company; the order required specific findings showing each director's individual role in the offending conduct, and a general statement that they were actively concerned was insufficient. The matter therefore resulted in the company penalty being sustained and the directors' penalties being annulled.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the penalty imposed on the appellant company was sustainable on the finding that the two units were not independent and had mutuality of interest; (ii) whether penalties could be sustained against the directors in the absence of specific findings as to their individual role and liability.

Issue (i): whether the penalty imposed on the appellant company was sustainable on the finding that the two units were not independent and had mutuality of interest.

Analysis: The impugned order recorded that the concern was floated by the appellant company, that there was financial nexus beyond a principal-to-principal relationship, and that the units did not deal at arm's length. The finding that the claim of independent dealing and separate existence was unsupported by evidence was based on the material considered by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The penalty on the appellant company was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether penalties could be sustained against the directors in the absence of specific findings as to their individual role and liability.

Analysis: Liability of directors could not be fastened merely because they were associated with the company. The relevant rules were directed against the manufacturer or producer, and personal penalty required a specific finding showing how each director was responsible for the offending acts. The order contained only a general statement that certain individuals were actively and mainly concerned, without individualised reasoning.

Conclusion: The penalties on the directors were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The dispute ended with the company penalty sustained and the directors' penalties annulled, resulting in partial success for the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Penal liability on directors cannot be sustained without specific findings establishing their individual responsibility for the offence, and a general or non-speaking finding is insufficient.

Concurring Opinion: S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President, agreed that the company appeal should be rejected, but opined that the directors' matters ought to be remanded for fresh adjudication under Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after proper consideration and hearing.

---