TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and whether the facts and circumstances of a case warrant imposition of penalty both on the Firm and its partners should be decided on the facts of each case. In the considered opinion of the Court, in the light of the above cited judgments, penalty on the partner as well as the partnership Firm can be simultaneously imposed and of course, imposition of penalty both on the Firm and its partners, depends upon the facts of each case - Appeal dismissed. - C.M.A.(MD)No.1559 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2016 - MR. M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND MRS. J.NISHA BANU, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. S. Renganathan For The Respondents : Mr. R. Nandakumar M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) The appellant is one of the partners of M/s. Shri Jayamuruga P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Seenivasan, husband of Smt. Amsa, one of the partners of SJPM, Accountant of SJPM, appellant and one of the Directors of PPPL as well as the Collection Agent of PPPL and it was found that 80 pages note books, which were seized at the residence of Shri. K. Seenivasan and at the Office premises of SJPM, contain receipts details written by Shri. K. Rajendran of PPPL and the said fact was admitted by the appellant herein, vide his statement dated 06.05.2009 as well as other persons. Total receipts available from the 80 pages note books for the period from March, 2005 to December, 2008, work out to ₹ 3,18,96,521/-. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 01.04.2010, calling upon the PPPL to show cause as to why an amount of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of paper. Hence, there are evidences to show that SJPM and the individuals had the knowledge about the evasion of duty of PPPL. Therefore, the said authority has passed the following order: ORDER (i) I confirm the duty amount of ₹ 3,76,086/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Six Thousands and Eighty Six only) (CENVAT-Rs. 3,61,240/- + Edu Cess - ₹ 7,335/- + SHE Cess - ₹ 2,031 + Paper Cess - ₹ 5,480) on M/s. Paragon Paper Private Limited under sub section (2) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act 1944. I adjust an amount of ₹ 3,76,086/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Six Thousands and Eighty Six only) already paid by them on 24.02.2010, 27.03.2010, 23.04.2010 and 21.06.2010 towards the said duty liability. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein, K. Seenivasan, husband of one of the partners as well as Shri. R. Rajkumar, Director of PPPL, aggrieved by the order-in-original passed by the said authority, filed Appeal Nos. 12 to 15 of 2011 before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai-2 and vide order dated 25.05.2011, the appellate authority has reduced the penalty from ₹ 1,00,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- and modified the impugned order as stated below: ORDER The impugned Order-in-Original is modified as under (a) Demand of duty of ₹ 3,76,086/- on M/s. Paragon Paper Private Limited under Sub section (2) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act 1944 and adjustment the same amount already paid towards the demand is upheld. (b) Imposition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not stand to gain anything out of this deal. Further, Sri. R. Rajkumar, Director of PPPL has also been imposed with penalty. The primordial ground raised by the appellant herein before the CESTAT was that when penalty was imposed on the partnership Firm, trading in the exciseable goods, no penalty can be imposed on the partners and, therefore, prays for setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority. 5. The CESTAT has taken up the appeal for final hearing and passed the final order, which is impugned in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the perusal of the said order would disclose that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed only on the quantum of penalty modified by the appellate authority and taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation on the Firm is of abetment and/or mens rea, then Sections 135(1)(a) and 140 of the said Act are applicable and simultaneous penalty is imposable. It is submitted by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents that in the original order, reasons have been assigned as to the imposition of penalty and it appears from the order passed by the appellate authority as well as by the CESTAT that the only argument advanced was as to the quantum of penalty and as such, it is not open to the appellant herein to make his submission on the merits of the matter and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 7. This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it. 8. The question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
