Personal penalty under excise law may be reduced where the executive's role is comparatively limited and facts justify moderation.

Personal penalty under Rule 209A was maintained in principle against a company executive involved in excise-related record manipulation and wrongful exemption claims, because liability could not be avoided merely by asserting no direct handling of excise work. The Tribunal nevertheless moderated the quantum by considering the appellant's relative role compared with other noticees, the reduction already granted in the connected matter, and the remand in the second matter. The first penalty was reduced and the second personal penalty was fixed at a lower amount. The appeals succeeded only to that extent and were otherwise dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the personal penalty imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required reduction in view of the appellant's role and the facts of the connected proceedings.

Analysis: The appellant was proceeded against for penalty as a company executive in cases involving manipulation of records and wrongful availment of exemption. The Tribunal held that the appellant could not completely avoid responsibility merely on the plea that he was not directly handling central excise matters. At the same time, the Tribunal took into account the comparative role of the appellant vis-a -vis other persons proceeded against, the reduction already granted in the connected matter, and the circumstance of remand in the second matter. On those considerations, the Tribunal reduced the first penalty to Rs. 1,75,000 and fixed the second personal penalty at Rs. 25,000.

Conclusion: The penalties were sustained in principle but reduced in quantum.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of reduction of the personal penalties, and were otherwise dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: While a company executive may remain liable for personal penalty for excise-related irregularities, the quantum of penalty may be moderated having regard to the person's relative role and the surrounding facts of the case.

---