2017 (5) TMI 871

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er in Original disposed off two Show Cause Notices No DGCEI No. IV(6)INV/RUI72/07/Ptl/1309 dated 2.6.2008 & No. DGCEI/AZU/36-11/2009-10/440/IND/ dated 7.05.2009. The Order in Original inter alia imposes a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each on the present Appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, and Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The main assessee M/s Soni Ispat Ltd. is presently not before us. The main appeal No.E/1540/2011 was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order No.FO/A/52593/2017 dated 28.02.2017 Thus, the matter presently concerns with these two Appellants only. 2. The brief facts are that: i) The Appellant Shri Vijay Soni is the Director, and Appellant Shri Manohar Singh Rana works as Excise Incharge & Authorised Sig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l knowledge of deliberate non- payment of duty or they were involved in the alleged act of commission of any offence related to Central Excise Rules. c) There is no evidence to involve the Appellant in the alleged activity of dealing in contraband excisable goods. d) The Appellants have no specific role in alleged evasion of duty. They are merely an employee and could not do anything independently on their own. They rely on the following case laws: i) Cipta Coated Steels Ltd. v/s Commissioner of C.Ex., Aurangabad 1999(133) E.L.T. 490 (Tribunal) ii) Z.U. ALVI v/s Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhopal 2000(117) E.L.T. 69 (Tribunal) It was held that Appellant an employee of the manufacturer not having any existence independent of manufacturer ....