TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as narrated in the petition may be noticed. M/s Narindera Paper Mills Limited is engaged in the manufacture of paper products falling under Chapter heading 48 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The company was having sixteen Directors. The respondent department initiated investigation against the company which culminated into show cause notice whereby the company was called upon to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 2.65 crores should not be demanded and recovered from it. The company was also called upon to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed. The company in its reply disputed the duty liability. The adjudicating authority held the company liable to pay duty alongwith penalty. Duty amounting to Rs. 2.65 crores was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r any amount lying in the credit of the company as well as the petitioner to the account of the Government. The Bank vide letter dated 16.11.2015, Annexure P.7, informed the petitioner that they had received a recovery notice under Section 11(2) of the 1944 Act from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Amritsar to remit the money lying in the account of Directors to the account of the Government of India. According to the petitioner, the respondents have initiated recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the 1944 Act. Under the said Act, there is no other provision of recovery. Further, there is no provision of recovery of outstanding excise dues of a company from its Directors or share holders like recovery of income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner as one of the Directors to deposit the outstanding dues of the company. 5. It is well settled that in the absence of any specific provision in the statute, the duty/penalty liability of the company cannot be recovered from the assets of its director. The Director is not personally liable towards liability of the company. This court while delving into an identical issue in Subhash Goyal vs. State of Haryana and others, 2014(4) PLR 343 held that in the absence of taking any specific recourse to proceedings under Section 18 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and any valid order for effecting recovery of arrears of sales tax from the directors of a private limited company in liquidation, the proceedings relating to recovery of arrears o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per action under Section 18 of the CST Act and considering the notification dated 4.9.1995 (Annexure P-11) issued under Section 8(5) of the CST Act." Further, identical matter has already been decided by this Court in favour of the petitioner in CWP No.9363 of 2015 (Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India and another), decided on 18.11.2015. 6. Adverting to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it may be noticed that in Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Company (P) Limited and another, 1996(4) SCC 622, it was held by the Apex Court that in case of corporate bodies created by an individual and his family members for defrauding people, the court can treat them as one entity. Such is not the posit....