1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 659 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 659 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 659 OF 2007 Pantula Pantula Pantula Vasukendra Rao Vasukendra Rao Vasukendra Rao ...... Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner vs vs vs Union Union Union of India & ors of India & ors of India & ors ...... Respondents Respondents Respondents Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i.b Akshar Laws for i.b Akshar Laws for i.b Akshar Laws for Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Mr.A.S.Rao Mr.A.S.Rao Mr.A.S.Rao with with with Mr.D.A.Dubey i/b Mr.D.A.Dubey i/b Mr.D.A.Dubey i/b Mr.H.P.Chaturvedi Mr.H.P.Chaturvedi Mr.H.P.Chaturvedi for Respondents for Respondents for Respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.RADHAKRISHNAN & : S.RADHAKRISHNAN & : S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ JJ JJ DATE DATE DATE : : : 7th June, 2007 7th June, 2007 7th June, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner. and Learned counsel for the petitioner. and Learned counsel for the petitioner. and learned learned learned counsel for the respondents. counsel for the respondents. counsel for the respondents. 2.2.2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging By this petition, the petitioner is challenging By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the the the order of the CESTAT dated 28th February, 2006. order of the CESTAT dated 28th February, 2006. order of the CESTAT dated 28th February, 2006. We We We have perused the said order. Paragraph 3 reads have perused the said order. Paragraph 3 reads have perused the said order. Paragraph 3 reads as as as under : under : under : 3.3.3. As regards Shri P.V.Rao it is seen that As regards Shri P.V.Rao it is seen that As regards Shri P.V.Rao it is seen that he he he was General Manager of VPL at the was General Manager of VPL at the was General Manager of VPL at the relevant relevant relevant time. The Commissioner has time. The Commissioner has time. The Commissioner has observed observed observed that being the General Manager and that being the General Manager and that being the General Manager and authorized authorized authorized signatory of VPL, he was signatory of VPL, he was signatory of VPL, he was concerned concerned concerned with the procurement of the with the procurement of the with the procurement of the licence licence licence and disposal of the imported goods and disposal of the imported goods and disposal of the imported goods inin in the local market. The appelant has also the local market. The appelant has also the local market. The appelant has also given given given an inculpatory statement dated an inculpatory statement dated an inculpatory statement dated 15.7.1997 15.7.1997 15.7.1997 during the course of during the course of during the course of investigation, investigation, investigation, wherein he has admitted his wherein he has admitted his wherein he has admitted his role role role in in in import of the goods as also in their import of the goods as also in their import of the goods as also in their subsequent subsequent subsequent disposal disposal disposal in the local market. He in the local market. He in the local market. He also also also admitted admitted admitted that earlier a wrong statement that earlier a wrong statement that earlier a wrong statement was was was given by them before the Kandla Customs given by them before the Kandla Customs given by them before the Kandla Customs that that that the goods were not sold in as much as the goods were not sold in as much as the goods were not sold in as much as 2 he he he was instructed to give a false statement was instructed to give a false statement was instructed to give a false statement by by by the the the Managing Director of the company. As Managing Director of the company. As Managing Director of the company. As such such such we are of the view that the said we are of the view that the said we are of the view that the said appellant appellant appellant is liable to imposition of is liable to imposition of is liable to imposition of penalty. penalty. penalty. However, keeping in view that the However, keeping in view that the However, keeping in view that the said said said appellant appellant appellant is an employee of the company is an employee of the company is an employee of the company and and and was was was acting under the instructions of the acting under the instructions of the acting under the instructions of the Managing Managing Managing Director, we reduce the personal Director, we reduce the personal Director, we reduce the personal penalty penalty penalty to Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five to Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five to Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five thousand thousand thousand only). only). only). 4.4.4. In view of the clear admission, we do not find In view of the clear admission, we do not find In view of the clear admission, we do not find any any any ground to interfere. Petition is totally ground to interfere. Petition is totally ground to interfere. Petition is totally devoid devoid devoid of merits. of merits. of merits. 5.5.5. Writ Petition stands dismissed. Writ Petition stands dismissed. Writ Petition stands dismissed. (V.C.Daga, (V.C.Daga, (V.C.Daga, J) J) J) (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, (Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J) J) J)