Case Law Details
M/s Global Cambay Marine Service Pvt Ltd Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
As regard the personal penalties imposed on the employees, namely, Sh. P P Radhakrishnan and Sh. Hanzel A Malik we find that these person are mere employees and performing their duties as per the instruction of their employer. There is no evidence that they have got any incentive out of the benefit derived by the appellant company. This Tribunal in the case of O P Agarwal (supra) held that employees of company carrying out orders given to them are not person in charge / responsible for conduct of its business, hence not liable for penalty. In the case of M/s Carpenter Classic Exim Pvt. Ltd (supra) this Tribunal has taken a view that employee having acted under the directions of his bosses there being no evidence that he personally benefited from the under invoicing of the goods, the penalty cannot be imposed on him under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. A similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Associated Plastics (supra) and held that employee have not played on their own violation in evasion of duty, therefore, the penalty is not justifiable.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Amin Chandrakant Bhailalbhai held that the employee do not have knowledge or reason to belief that goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962, the penalty is not imposable on employee.
In view of the above judgments and the facts involved in the present case related to the employees of the company we find that the employees cannot be penalized as they do not have belief that the goods are liable for confiscation, moreover, they are mere employee of the company working on fixed salary basis and there is no evidence on record that they were benefited by any act of evasion of duty by the company, therefore, the employees are not liable for penalty.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
