TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (8) TMI 93
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment of Revenue and Banking imposing a penalty of Rs. 7,000/- on the petitioner. 2.The petitioner, who was working as S. A. S. Accountant in the office of the Accountant-General, Hyderabad, formed a company known as "The Khairatabad Ramprasad Khadi and Village Industries Association" under the Trading Companies Act, 1962. The company consisted of 7 directors and the petitioner was the President of the Board of Directors. It appears that subsequently he had resigned from the office of the President on account of some objections raised by the office of the Accountant General. 3.The factory of the Company was located in the A. C. Guards area in Hyderabad in the premises hearing No. 10-1-846 and the Company was carrying on business o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Collector of Central Excise. Accordingly, the provisions of Rule 173-G(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 have been contravened. 4. The said seized 312 bundles found in the said room did not bear any serial numbers as required under Rule 171(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and as such Rule 71(4) has been contravened. 5. M/s. The Khairatabad Ramprasad Khadi & Village Industries Association, L. 4 No. 2/69 (Matches) A. C. Guards, Hyderabad, have (a) removed the excisable goods in contravention of the provisions of the Rules cited above; (b) did not account for all the matches manufactured by them; and (c) contravened the provisions of Rules cit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were, however, directed to be released, if claimed, by the petitioner on or before 31-12-1972. Against the said order, both the petitioner and the Association preferred appeals to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which were disposed of by the order dated 27-7-1974 confirming the finding of the Collector but setting aside the penalty imposed on the Association, and confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the petitioner. On a further revision by the petitioner to the Government of India, the Government reduced the penalty on the petitioner to Rs 7,000/- and dismissed the revision in other respects. 5.The petitioner now challenges these orders of the three authorities imposing the penalty. The first contention raised by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, the declaration shall be signed by the Chairman or some director of the corporation or by its Secretary or principal officer. Under sub-rule (2) any person signing the declaration and also the corporation shall be liable for the payment of all duties charged and to all penalties and confiscations incurred, in respect of the trade or business to which the declaration relates. This rule clearly makes the corporation as well as the person signing the declaration liable for the penalty imposed under the Act and Rules. 7.Shri Suryaprakasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought to contend that inasmuch as the corporation was exonerated from the liability for penalty, the petitioner cannot be made liable. But sub-rule (2) of Rule 2....