TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002, specially when all the said persons had admitted their office(s) during the course of investigation? - Held that: - a composite penalty stands imposed on the partners under the provisions of two different Acts, without any demarcations, we are constrained to set aside the same on the above ground - reliance was placed in the case of COMMISSIONER, C. EX. & CUSTOMS, SURAT – II Versus RG. AGAR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted their office(s) during the course of investigation? (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal committed error in setting aside the penalties imposed upon the responsible persons, under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, specially when the CESTAT upheld the confiscation of goods and penalty imposed on M/s. Al-Amin Exports and M/s. Sunshine Overse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37) RLT 221 (SC) = 2000 (116) E.L.T. 412 (S.C.) and observed as under :- 11. The facts of the present case are that the authorities are not clear as to whether the penalty is to be levied for violation of which provision and the question of apportionment is not involved in the present case. Even in the case before the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal has not given any finding that the penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs as also partnership firm cannot be imposed. In addition to the above noted decision, the Tribunal also relied on the following pronouncements of different courts : (1) CCE C, Surat-II v. R.G. Agarwal - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 215 (Guj.). (2) R.G. Agarwal v. CCE C, Surat - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 274 (Tri.- Ahmedabad). (3) Kamlesh Kumar Goel v. CCE, Thane-II - 2008 (223 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
