TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Member Shri K. Parameswaran, Advocate - For the Appellant Commissioner (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner has imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on the appellant who is the partner of M/s. Sivasakthi Engineering Co. under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is the partner of Sivasakthi Engineering Company which is having its manufacturing unit at Subroto Mukhrjee Road, Jalahalli West, Bangalore. Sivasakthi Engineering Company is a partnership firm and engaged in the manufacture of M.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. He further submitted that in the first place, the lower adjudicating authority grossly erred in imposing the said penalty on the appellant for the simple reason that though it was indicated in the invoices that the goods were to be delivered to a premises other than one mentioned in the certificate, still all the said goods cleared have been duly re-warehoused and for each and every clearance made the consignment having arrived at the correct premises and having been re-warehoused under the entry endorsed at the said warehousing certificate was issued. He further submitted that while interpreting Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 various Courts have laid down that for imposing personal penalty it is necessary to establish that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held in para 8.3 as under: 8.3 Though Abdul Salam as partner of Classic ITM has also played a role in rendering goods liable for confiscation, since M/s. Classic ITM as a partnership concern is held liable to penalty, no separate penalty is warranted and justified on Shri Abdul Salam. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Metal Works V. CCE, Ahmedabad is not on the point whether separate penalties could be imposed on the partnership firm and partners as the Tribunal's order against which the appeal has been filed did not raise such an issue. On the other hand, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE V, Jupiter Exports reported at 2007 (213) E.L.T. 641 has clearly held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
