TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V. Ramasubramanian And N. Kirubakaran, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, CGSC JUDGMENT ( Judgment was delivered by V. Ramasubramanian,J ) These appeals, filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, arise out of the common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal refusing to condone the delay of more than 2200 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 2. Heard Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Department. 3. These appeals arise out of three sets of cases. In one set of cases, a proprietary concern by name M/s.Indian Steel and Allied Products, Chennai, its sole proprietor B.S.Garg, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with a huge delay of 2249 days, the Department filed fresh appeals against the partners/proprietors/brokers as well as persons, who issued the bills. 6. In a very brief common affidavit filed in support of the applications for condonation of delay, the Department claimed that the appeals were filed with a delay upon the advice of the Special Counsel. The applications for condonation of delay comprised of seven paragraphs. Paragraphs 5 and 6 alone sought to project the semblance of a reason, which is actually an apology of a reason for condonation of delay. These paragraphs read as follows : 5. Based on the directions of the Board, a single appeal was filed inadvertently naming M/s. Indian Steel and Allied Products, Chennai-57 as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturers will not certainly fail on this score. Hence, the concern of the Department is actually illusory. 10. The main ground of attack to the impugned orders is that even if ultimately the Department succeeds in their appeals against the manufacturers, those orders may have to be implemented only as against partners/proprietors. Therefore, the Department feels that the appeals against the individuals should also be entertained. 11. But, we do not think so. If the Department succeeds in the main appeals as against the manufacturers, the orders can be certainly enforced against proprietors/partners. The liability of a partnership firm is that of the partners. The liability of the proprietary concern is that of the proprietor. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
