TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is none of these, therefore, no penalty can be imposed upon the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - it is observed that no such observations have been made by the Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority to justify that imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Decided in favor of the assessee. - E/76139/2014 - Final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of duty of ₹ 4,48,401/- and equivalent amount of penalty imposed upon the partnership concern was paid by M/s. Varun Steel Industry. That equivalent amount of penalty has also been imposed upon the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is the case of the appellant that Sri Sanjeev Bagaria was only a partner of partnership concern M/s. Varun Steel Industry and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd.[1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 399) (S.C.)]. and strongly defended the ordered passed by the lower authority. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant can be visited with penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is observed from the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra), decided by Gujarat High Court, once a penalty has been imposed upon the partnership firm then separate penalty is not imposable upon the partner of the firm because a partner is not a separate legal entity. 6. In view of the above observations and settled proposition of law penalty imposed upon the appellant is set aside with consequential relief, if any. (Operative Portion of the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
