Personal penalty under Central Excise law requires a clear finding of individual role in the contravention before liability can be sustained.

Personal penalty under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires a clear adjudicatory finding that the individual had a specific role in the contravention. Where the order addresses evasion, undervaluation, misdeclaration, and Modvat irregularities only as company-level allegations, but records no reasoned finding of the appellants' own omission or commission, the basis for personal liability is absent. On that footing, the penalties were unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether personal penalty under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained against the appellants in the absence of a finding establishing their role in the alleged evasion by the company.

Analysis: The impugned order framed and decided issues concerning undervaluation, misdeclaration, and Modvat irregularities attributable to the company, but it did not frame or record a finding on the appellants' specific omission or commission that would make them liable for personal penalty. The order nevertheless concluded that they had schemed and indulged in the alleged misconduct without supporting findings on their individual role. In the absence of a reasoned finding connecting the appellants to the alleged contravention, the basis for imposing personal penalty was lacking.

Conclusion: The personal penalties were not sustainable and were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 unless the adjudicating authority records a clear finding establishing the individual's role in the contravention.

---