M/S. Arunachal Pradesh Mineral ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No.Ex.Ap.70901/13
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on an individual officer of a company is personal to that individual, so an appeal against such penalty must be preferred by the individual penalised and not by the company of which he is an officer; an appeal filed by the company against a penalty imposed on its General Manager is therefore not maintainable.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.01/ADJ/CE/COMMR/DIB/13 dated 29.4.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dibrugarh.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HONBLE DR. I.P. LAL, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?
M/s. Arunachal Pradesh Mineral Development & Trading Corpn. Ltd. Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh Respondent (s)
Appearance:
NONE for the Appellant (s)
Shri A.Roy, Supdt.(AR) for the Respondent (s)
CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Honble Dr. I.P. Lal, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing:- 11.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 11.06.2015
ORDER NO.FO/A/75292/2015
Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. None present for the applicant despite notice. Heard the ld.AR for the Revenue.
2. The ld.AR for the Revenue at the outset submits that the appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as the appellant herein is M/s.Arunachal Pradesh Mineral Development & Trading Corpn. Ltd. challenging the penalty imposed under Rule 26 against Shri Arijit Roy, General Manager(Mining) of the said company. He submits that since the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 against Shri Arijit Roy, General Manager(Mining) appeal should have been preferred by Shri Arijit Roy, whereas the present appeal has been preferred by the company, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.
3. We find force in the submission of the ld.AR for the Revenue. In the result the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable. Stay Petition disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
SD/ SD/
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm
2 Appeal No.Ex.Ap.70901/13
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free