TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 646
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Customs Act. Each of them carries a penalty of Rs. 10 crores imposed on them by the Commissioner. 2. The company had also filed an appeal (C/922/09) against the Commissioner's order. In the stay application filed by them, this Bench vide Order Nos. S/359-362/10 dated 3-12-10 [2011 (264) E.L.T. 427 (Tri. - Mum.)] directed them to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 15.97 crores towards demand of duty of Rs. 33,86,09,076/- under Section 129E of the Customs Act. The stay applications filed by the three Directors of the company were allowed as per the said order dated 3-12-10, subject to compliance by the company with the above direction for pre-deposit. The company did not make any pre-deposit. Instead, they filed an application for modifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er exists. It follows that their stay applications which were not considered on merits in the original stay order dated 3-12-10 survive for fresh disposal; (b) On 11-2-11, the Bench suo motu directed these stay applications to be listed for hearing. This direction was not challenged by the department. The relevant noting on the order sheet is an order pronounced in the open court and the same is binding on both sides ; (c) If the objection raised by the JCDR is admitted, the effect would be that the appeals of the Directors of the company shall be taken up for disposal on merits without pre-deposit. Such a consequence, obviously in favour of the Revenue, is not conceivable by the Bench, inasmuch as Sec.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sar - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 991 (Tri. - Del.); (2) Anil Bhalla v. Commissioner of Customs - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 883 (Tri.- Kolkata); (3) Z.U. Alvi v. CCE - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 69 (Tri.); (4) Abhay Oswal v. CCE - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 381 (Tri. - Del.); (5) Sundeep Aurora v. CCE (Exports) Chennai - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 53 (Tri.-Bang.); (6) Tirupati Granites (P)Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.); and (7) Sanjay Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 58 (Tri.- Bang.). It is submitted that the Civil appeal filed by the department against the Tribunal's decision in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... material period. Ld. JCDR has also relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Vibhuti Exports v. Commissioner of Customs - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 195 (Tri. - Del.). On this basis, ld. JCDR prays for a direction to the appellants to pre-deposit the penalty amounts. 8. We have considered the submissions. In his statement, Shri Ramswroop Joshi, Sales Manager and authorised representative of the company, stated inter alia that Shri Sanjay Parasrampuria used to look after the day-to-day affairs of the company. We have also perused the bond executed by Shri Sanjay Parasrampuria as Managing Director of the company. The terms and conditions of the bond were clear enough to bring home to him the obligations to be discharged by him and co-directors....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decisions cited by the ld. counsel are even otherwise distinguishable. For instance, in the case of Anil Bhalla (supra), there was no material on record to reflect upon the involvement of the Managing Director of the company in the offence committed by that company. In the case of Z.U. Alvi (supra), the appellant before this tribunal was only an employee of the company. It was held that, as he only acted in his capacity as employee of the company, he did not fall within the purview of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The view taken in the case of Abhay Oswal (supra) is that the rights and obligations of a limited company are not shared by the Managing Director and hence there can be no penalty on him under Sec. 112 of the Ac....