TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partner. In the impugned order, the Commissioner observed that the Appellants had filed wrong declarations with wilful suppression of actual manufacturing process carried out by them and suppressing the nature and quality of the fabric manufactured by them and mis-declaring their actual classification with intent to evade payment of duty. - role of the partner was not indicated in the Show Cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Textiles, filed, these appeals against imposition of penalties of ₹ 5 lakhs each under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. In the earlier occasion, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalty on the partnership firm. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Surat Vs Mahendra Kumar Kapadia - 2010 (260) ELT 51 (Guj.) held that no penalty would be imposed on the partners once separate penalty is imposed on the partnership firm. He also relied upon the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Jai Prakash Motwani - 2010 (258) ELT 204 (Guj.). 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacturing process carried out by them and suppressing the nature and quality of the fabric manufactured by them and mis-declaring their actual classification with intent to evade payment of duty. 7. The learned Advocate had not seriously disputed the case on fact. He relied upon the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court. In both the cases, the Hon ble High Court observed that the role of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
