RD Mumbai deletes penalty for Missing CIN on Letterheads [Read Order]

The ROC Goa penalised Indu Packaging (Daman) Limited for violating Section 12(3)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, by failing to print the Corporate Identification Number (CIN) on letterheads used for statutory filings across three financial years. The appellants challenged this by arguing that the omission was a “one-time” event rather than a continuous violation and claimed that the Show Cause Notice was issued past the legal limitation period. Conversely, the ROC argued that the failure to display the CIN was an offence of a “continuing nature”, warranting sustained penalties based on established regulatory precedents.

Issue of the case

Is the failure to mention the CIN on company letterheads a continuous offence or a one-time default tied to specific documents?

Whether the penalty should apply to all three financial years (2015-16 to 2017-18) or only to the year where letterheads were actually utilised?

Decision of the RD Mumbai

The regional director ruled that the failure to mention the CIN on letterheads was not a continuous offence but was instead confined to the specific instances where the documents were actually used. Since no letterheads were utilised for the filings in F.Y. 2015-16 and 2017-18, the forum ruled that no violations occurred during those years. However, the default was confirmed for F.Y. 2016-17, during which three letterheads were used without the required CIN. Consequently, the original order was modified to impose a penalty of Rs. 1,000 for each of the three identified events, resulting in a total fine of Rs. 12,000, distributed as Rs. 3,000 each among the company and its three directors.