2002 (4) TMI 877

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. -  These two appeals arise out of the same impugned order, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are manufacturer of co-extruded multilayer films and flexible packing materials. The appellant-company was using p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty equal to duty on the company and Rs. 5.0 lacs on the Managing Director of the company. 3. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Counsel submits that the appellants had no intention to evade payment of duty. He submits that it was a clerical error of the employee who was maintaining the central excise records. He submits that as soon as the mistake was poin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mount of duty was quite substantial, therefore, the quantum of penalty was not too high on the company. Learned SDR also submits that Managing Director is answerable to the company as he would be looking after day to day working in company and cannot absolve himself of the responsibility. He, therefore, submits that penalty has rightly been imposed on the Managing Director. 6. On careful c....