TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mposition of personal penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on the appellant in terms of provisions of Rule 209A. The appellant is a Chairman of one M/s. Ashok Fashion Ltd. In terms of the impugned order, duty of Rs. 4.50 crores stands confirmed against M/s. Ashok Fashion Ltd. along with imposition of personal penalty of an identical amount on the findings of clandestine removal. We are informed that the said c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the buyers recorded during the course of investigation, nowhere implicates the appellant and show him as the person involved in clandestine activity. There is also no other evidence on record to show that the clandestine activity were being undertaken with his permission or consent. As such, imposition of penalty under Rule 209A was not called for, in the absence of any evidence showing invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-writing expert. As per the said opinion, authentic signature of the appellant, as appearing in his income-tax return, pass-port, affidavit, etc. was compared with the alleged signature on the loose sheet and it was opined that the same were not his signature. In response to the above plea of the appellant, the adjudicating authority has observed that - "It is possible that if the signature is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld to be aware of all the activities of the company and as such a claim would no per se suffice to hold him liable to penalty under Rules 209A. For the above proposition, reference is made to Tribunal's order in case of Man Industries (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Indore - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 435 (Tri.-Del.). Further, in the case of EMCEE Crowns v. CCE, Bangalore - '2004 (113) E.L.T. 490 (Tri.), it was obse....