Personal liability of corporate signatory and limited writ review of excise contravention findings under the rules.

Rule 221 of the Central Excise Rules makes both the corporate body and the person signing the declaration liable for duties, penalties and confiscations arising from the business, so the signatory's personal liability continues even if the corporation's penalty is later set aside. Concurrent factual findings that excisable goods were removed in breach of the prescribed excise requirements will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction where they rest on evidence and no violation of natural justice or procedural illegality is shown. On those principles, the petitioner's challenge to the penalty and the finding of contravention could not succeed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner, having signed the declaration for the corporate body, was personally liable for penalty along with the corporation under the Central Excise Rules; (ii) Whether interference was warranted with the concurrent factual finding that the excisable goods were removed in contravention of the Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner, having signed the declaration for the corporate body, was personally liable for penalty along with the corporation under the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: Rule 221 provided that where a trade or business is carried on by a corporation, the declaration must be signed by the chairman, director, secretary, or other principal officer, and that both the person signing the declaration and the corporation are liable for duties, penalties, and confiscations incurred in relation to that trade or business. The fact that the penalty on the corporation had been set aside did not affect the statutory liability attaching to the signatory.

Conclusion: The petitioner was personally liable for penalty, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether interference was warranted with the concurrent factual finding that the excisable goods were removed in contravention of the Rules.

Analysis: The authorities had recorded concurrent findings, after consideration of the material and after giving opportunity to the petitioner, that the seized excisable goods had been removed without compliance with the prescribed excise requirements. No breach of natural justice or procedural irregularity was shown, and the finding was based on appreciation of evidence. In such circumstances, no ground existed for interference in writ jurisdiction with the factual conclusions reached by the authorities.

Conclusion: The concurrent finding of contravention was upheld and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in substance, as the penalty on the petitioner was sustained on both personal liability and factual contravention grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes both the corporate body and the person signing its declaration liable, the signatory's liability survives even if the corporation's penalty is set aside, and concurrent factual findings of contravention will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent procedural illegality or violation of natural justice.

---