2012 (7) TMI 850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unsel appearing for the appellant. Though Rule has been served on the respondents, no one appears for the department. 2. This Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law. 1. 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 t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rs. 10 lacs. Penalty of Rs. 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, 2010 (258) E.L.T. 204 (Guj.) that where no specific Rule is attributed to the partner in the firm, then once firm has already been penalised, separate penalty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X