9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Barrels/Drums falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 73101090 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The Preventive Unit of the Head Quarters conducted investigation by visiting the factory and the office of the firm and took possession of various documents and records maintained by the firm. The basic allegation against the firm is that they have cleared the excisable goods without payment of duty against the said certificates to premises other than ones mentioned in those certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the said person has done or omitted to do any act which is required under Rule or should have aided or abetted for the commissioning of any such act it would result in having knowledge that such goods are liable for confiscation. He further submitted that the Commissioner in the impugned order has confirmed the demand on the firm along with penalty and after confirming the demand as well as penalty on the firm, partners separately cannot be punished as the partnership is nothing but the group ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich 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 that when partnership firm is penalized, separate penalties cannot be imposed. On this ground the penalty, Shri Abdul Salam on partner under Section 114 cannot be sustained." 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material and the decisions relied upon by the appellant, I am of the view that on the same allegation when the penalty has been imposed on the partnership firm, then no separate penalty on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
