TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct), appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 16-11-2007 made by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), proposing the following two questions : "(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law and has committed a substantial error of law in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty imposed on the partners of a partnership firm under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 despite the partners having willfully and knowingly acted in a manner to facilitate in clearance of the goods in a clandestine manner and despite having dealt with the goods which they knew or had reason to believe were liable to confiscation under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitting that the Tribunal had erred in confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and setting aside the penalty imposed on the partners of the partnership firm under Section 112 of the Act despite the fact that the partners having willfully and knowingly facilitated the clearance of the goods in a clandestine manner and despite having dealt with the goods which they knew or had reason to believe were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. 5. As can be seen from the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record, has held that merely because the respondents had paid duty before the issuance of show cause notice would not absolve the respondents from the liability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the law of partnership, a firm has no legal existence apart from its partners and is merely a compendious name to describe its partners as distinguished from a company which stands as a separate juristic entity distinct from its shareholders. Thus, once penalty is levied on the firm for contravention of any provision of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, it amounts to levy of penalty on the partners, hence, there would be no question of penalizing the partners separately for the same contravention, unless the intention of the legislature to treat the firm and partners as distinct entities is borne out from the statute itself, as in the case of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Whenever the legislature intends to treat the partners and the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
