TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 910
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er (AR) : For The Respondent ORDER Per: P.K. Jain These two appeals are filed by the appellant against imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the first case which is covered by order-in-original No. 09/CEX/2000 dated 27.3.2000, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant. In the second case which is covered by order-in-original No. 22/CEX/200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e earlier mentioned Tribunals order, the penalty on Shri Shrikant Sitaram Maniyar has been reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs and since his role is of a lower level, the penalty imposed on him should be less than Rs. 2 lakhs. It was also submitted that even though he was the chief executive officer but he was not looking after the central excise work and he was not aware of the manipulation done by the main b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailment of exemption notification. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that in the first case, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each was imposed on Shri Shrikant Sitaram Maniyar and the present appellant. The present appellant being the chief executive officer cannot absolve himself of the responsibility. We have also gone through the said judgment of the Tribunal and k....