Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 296 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal of goods - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- Appellant No.5 M/s. Vandevi Texturisers (P) Limited and its CEO Appellant No.6 indulged the whole conspiracy with Appellant No. 1, 2 and 3 in hand in gloves in clandestinely disposal of the goods. All were directly involved in disposal of the goods in open market in different roles as stated in the Adjudication order Quantum of penalty are excessive. As regards the imposition of penalty on Shri Rashid Sadatali Saiyed, the Commissioner (Appeals) has already observed that the said person was exploited by Appellant No. 2 and 3 and was under compulsion. It is also noticed that the penalty was imposed on the partnership firm, so, the penalty on Shri Rashid Sadatali Saiyed (Appellant No.4) is not warranted. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pravin N. Shah vs. CESTAT - [2012 (7) TMI 850 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], held that separate penalty not imposable upon partner of firm because partner is not a separate legal entity and cannot be equated with employee of firm. In that case, the important question of law before the Hon'ble Court was, “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- imposed on the appellants under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 now Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001”. The Hon'ble Court answered to the question in favour of the appellant and set-aside the penalty on the partner. - Penalty imposed on appellant 1 & 2 is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|