AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t a case was booked against M/s. Motorol Technologies Limited for evasion of duty by clandestine clearance. Notices were issued to these appellants namely Shri V.K. Vora, Vice President (Material), Shri H.S. Nagaraj Manager (Sales & Administration), Shri Rinki S. Gandhi, Managing Director of M/s. Motorol Technologies Limited, M/s. Motorol Lubricants Pvt. Limited and M/s. Motorol Speciality Oils Limited for imposing penalties. The matter travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order No. A/2757-2762/WZB/HAD/2008 dated 18.12.2008 held as follows:- "11. As such, the charges of clandestine removal further get corroborated from the labour contractor and the records maintained by him and the bills raised by him for the goods manufactur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntire realization as cum-duty price in the light of the law declared by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shri Chakra Tyres - 1999 (32) RLT 1(CEGAT) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited - 2005 (179) ELT A102 (SC). For the said purpose, we remand the matter to Commissioner. The applicants are at liberty to show to the Commissioner any duplication of demand, either in respect of the clandestine clearances or in respect of the clearances made from the receipts of M/s. Motorol Speciality Oils Limited. 13. Inasmuch as the appeal for re-quantification of duty demand is being remanded, the Commissioner would also adjudge the penal liabilities of every appellant afresh depending upon the out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Tribunal again. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that vide order dated S/751-756/WZB/HAD/2010, M/s. Motorol Technologies Limited were directed to deposit Rs. 13.50 Lakhs under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since M/s. Motorol Technologies Limited failed to fulfill the conditions of pre-deposit, therefore the appeal of M/s. Motorol Technologies Limited was dismissed for non-compliance. The grounds taken in the written submission filed by the appellants namely Shri V.K. Vora and Shri H.S. Nagraj are that the employees of the Company cannot be held responsible and liable for penalty when they have not personally benefitted from the alleged clandestine tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfiscated. In the instant case, the goods involving duty of only worth Rs. 83,770/- have been seized and therefore, penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- is not justified. We observe that Shri Rinki S. Gandhi is Managing Director of the main noticee namely, M/s. Motorol Technologies Limited. The defense of all the employees is that they were acting upon the direction of their employer. The beneficiary of the entire amount of Rs. 1,24,91,612/- would have been Shri Rinki S. Gandhi directly or indirectly. In these circumstances, the penalty on Shri Rinki S. Gandhi is rightly leaviable. However, the penalty of Rs. 25 Lakhs imposed on the appellant is disproportionate. Therefore, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 25,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the employees of M/s. Motorol Speciality Oil Limited for appropriating the job work challans showing a huge quantity returned as residue. In the above circumstances, they were directly involved in the entire activities of evasion. However, keeping in view the fact that both are employees and taking a lenient view, penalties of Shri V.K. Vora is reduced from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) and penalty on Shri H.S. Nagraj is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). Penalties have also been imposed on M/s. M/s. Motorol Speciality Oil Limited, Halol and M/s. Motorol Lubricants Pvt. Limited, Vadodara under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Ld. Counsel has relied on the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain. The corporation/company, stands to no gain out of misdemeanors of the individuals i.e. Board of Directors. In the eyes of law, the corporate entity being a person would be held responsible for the act of the natural persons. But in order to punish the guilty individuals, the veil of corporate entity had to be lifted to understand the correct picture. Precisely for these reasons only the provisions of Rule 209A came in to statute, in order to punish the guilty acting behind the veil of corporation/company. If in a given situation a parcel booking clerk of the Indian Railways, in order to have some personal gain, colludes with others to book the goods without any duty paying documents (though he has knowledge that the goods have to be bo....