https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202318 Personal penalty was sustained because the appellant, as Managing Director during the period of under valuation, was shown to be in charge of the activity through persons authorised by him to collect excess amounts. No material showed that he took steps to stop the misconduct, and the underlying finding of under valuation against the company had already attained finality. On those facts, the penalty was held to be justified and proportionate, so no interference was warranted. en-us Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202318 Personal penalty was sustained because the appellant, as Managing Director during the period of under valuation, was shown to be in charge of the activity through persons authorised by him to collect excess amounts. No material showed that he took steps to stop the misconduct, and the underlying finding of under valuation against the company had already attained finality. On those facts, the penalty was held to be justified and proportionate, so no interference was warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202318