TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to impose penalty on the respondents herein while imposing penalty of Rs.10,00,000 on the Director of the respondent-company. Application for condonation of delay is also listed. 2. Proceedings were initiated against M/s Shri Balaji Rollings Pvt Ltd for having failed to comply with the conditions for clearance of 2000 MTs of 'non-alloy steel melting scrap' cleared from warehouse against five bills of entry no. 6861, 6862, 6863, 6864/11.04.2002 on claim for the benefit of notification no. 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March 2002 mandating the utilisation of the imported material for the specified purpose at the premises of the importer. Investigations having established that the goods had been diverted elsewhere, adjudication culminated in deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the application for condonation. It is seen from the application that the appeal was filed only against one of the respondent and that the appeal against the other, Shri VS Arunachalam, was filed only on 31st August, 2018. 6. Learned Authorised Representative submits that, though the appeal should have been filed by 26th May 2011, acute shortage of staff tasked with extensive duties, prevented the filing of appeal in time. It was also submitted that, by oversight, only the first respondent was named in the appeal instead of both and, taking the plea that Revenue has the privilege of filing a single appeal with two respondents, it is pleaded that the present application be allowed for admitting of the second appeal instead of amending ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayer now made for charging the respondent-company with penalty under section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. 10. It is also submitted that the company/firm is not liable to penalty under section 112 which may be invoked against only a natural person. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Woodmen Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna [2004 (164) ELT 339 (Tri.-Kolkata)], which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Steel Tubes of India Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2007 (217) ELT 506 (Tri.-LB)]. 11. On behalf of the second respondent, it is contended that the appeal should be disposed off at the threshold as the original penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. Undoubtedly the expression "Any person" would include a natural and unnatural person i.e. it would include in its ambit any company or corporation or body of individual/s. The moot question is that whether such unnatural body corporate has its own mind, to have knowledge that the goods are liable for confiscation. It is common knowledge that a corporation/ company is run by a Board of Directors, who are individuals. They are the trustees of the shareholders of the corporation/ company. The decisions taken by the Board of Directors would be for the company but it will not be a decision of the corporation/company. In a given situation, if the Board of Directors decide between themselves, and pass a resolution to engage in the act of evasio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty having been imposed on the Director of M/s Kamachi Steels Ltd, no penalty will lie on the respondent herein. 13. In the original adjudication proceedings, penalty of Rs.5,00,000 was imposed on the second respondent herein and it was on his appeal that the matter was remanded back to the original authority. If at all, any penalty that could be imposed by the original authority in fresh proceedings would have to be limited by this ceiling. This is clearly brought out in re Servo Packaging Ltd thus '25. In the absence of any appeal filed by the department on the finding, relating to alleged clandestine removal of raw materials, the appellant cannot be put in a worse position, in their own appeal, and in such circumstances, the p....