Directors not personally liable for company's duty & penalty liabilities under Central Excise Act

The court held that recovery of a company's duty and penalty liabilities cannot be enforced against its director's assets under the Central Excise Act, 1944, without specific legal provisions. Directors are not personally liable for company debts unless statutes explicitly provide for such recovery. The court differentiated cases involving fraudulent activities and emphasized that recovery from directors necessitates specific legal recourse. The petition was allowed, preventing coercive recovery measures against the director and granting liberty to the department to pursue the company for outstanding dues through lawful means.

---

---

Issues:
Recovery of outstanding dues from a company's director under Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus/prohibition to prevent coercive recovery measures by the respondents. The case involved M/s Narindera Paper Mills Limited facing duty and penalty demands of Rs. 2.65 crores, confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Despite appeals and a remand by the Delhi High Court, the company failed to comply due to business closure. Subsequently, the respondent department directed the petitioner, a director, to deposit the outstanding dues. The petitioner argued that recovery from a shareholder or director is not provided for under the Central Excise Act, 1944, akin to income tax recovery from private limited company directors.

The court examined the legal position and cited precedents to establish that in the absence of specific provisions, a company's duty/penalty liability cannot be recovered from its director's assets. Referring to Subhash Goyal vs. State of Haryana, it was highlighted that recovery from directors requires specific recourse under Section 18 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which was not evident in the present case. The court emphasized that directors are not personally liable for the company's liabilities unless specific legal provisions exist for recovery.

Addressing judgments cited by the respondents, the court differentiated cases involving corporate entities created for fraudulent purposes or transfers with tax evasion intent, which were not applicable to the present scenario. Ultimately, the court held that the respondents' action compelling the petitioner to clear the company's dues was unsustainable. The petition was allowed, granting liberty to the respondents to pursue the company for dues clearance in accordance with the law.

---