Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2012 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 850 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTPenalty - Whether penalty can be imposed upon the appellant under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 now Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 in the facts and circumstances of the case - Held that:- Penalty has been imposed on the firm. The Tribunal [2010 (4) TMI 943 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has imposed penalty on the partner only on the ground that total amount of duty involved was approximately ₹ 88 lacs and equal amount of penalty has been imposed on the appellant firm. Therefore, penalty imposed on Mr. P.N. Shah, partner of the firm was on the higher side and it has reduced it to ₹ 10 lacs. Penalty of ₹ 87,96,398/- has been imposed on the firm under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It has been held by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Jai Prakash Motwani, [2009 (1) TMI 501 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] that where no specific Rule is attributed to the partner in the firm, then once firm has already been penalised, separate penalty cannot be imposed upon the partner because a partner is not a separate legal entity and cannot be equated with employee of a firm. From the order of the Tribunal or other orders on record, we do not find that any specific role has been assigned as provided by Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. Penalty has been imposed on the firm, no separate penalty can be imposed on its partner - Decided in favour of assessee.
|