TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts under Rule 209 A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rule,1944, in the Rule 26 of Central Excise Rule, 2001. The Hon’ble High Court set-aside the penalty with the observation that penalty has imposed on the firm, no separate penalty can be imposed on partner. - Appeal No : E/1646, 1647/2009, E/1607/2009 (Application No : E/Extn/14093-14094,16915-16916/2014) - Order No. A/10596-10598 / 2015 - Dated:- 12-2-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, JJ. For The Assessee : Shri K.I. Vyas Advocate For The Revenue : Shri. J. Nair. Authorised Representative Per: P.K. Das All the appeals are arising out of the common order and therefore, these are taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. 2010 (259) E.L.T. 53, (Guj.) held that benefit of reduced penalty under Section 11 AC of the said Act, 1944, would be given to the assessee, when the Adjudicating Authority has not given such option. In view of that the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merit. 4. Regarding the imposition of penalty on the partner of the assessee, the learned Advocate relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Pravin N. Shah V/s. CESTAT 2014 (305) ELT. 480 (Guj.). On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Labdi Prints V/s Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Gujarat. 2015 (308) E.L.T. 178 (Tri. Ahmd.). 5. I find that the Division Bench of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where penalty has been imposed on the firm, no separate penalty can be imposed on its partner. We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench. Therefore, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the question is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The appeal is allowed. Penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. 6. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Labdi Prints (supra), following the decision of the Hon,ble Bombay High Court held that penalty is imposable on partner for availing Cenvat Credit fraudulently, I find that in the case of Praveen N. Shah (Supra), the question of law before the Hon ble High Court was whether in the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
