TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant was fully and deeply involved in the fraud of issuing of bogus invoices by M/s Isha Enterprises. The firm had issued these invoices passing on Cenvat credit to the buyers without supply of the goods and resorted diversion of goods without invoices. The appellant and other partners in the appellant’s firm have accepted that they were involved in the aforesaid malpractice and the buye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r firm M/s Isha Enterprises, who is alleged to have issued bogus invoices without supply of the goods to 15 manufacturers/traders in NCR. After investigation, a show cause notice was issued and the matter was adjudicated resulting in confirmation of demand against recipient manufacturers and imposition of penalty on M/s Isha Enterprises and its partners. Penalty of ₹ 25,000/- was imposed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustries vs. CCE, Surat 2003 (154) 417 (Tri.-Mum.); (v) Amrit Lakshmi Machine Works vs. CC (Import), Mumbai 2016 (335) ELT 225 (Bom.). Ld. Advocate also submitted that penalty of ₹ 3 lakhs has been imposed on the main party M/s Isha Enterprises. He pleaded that the penalty imposed on Sh. Amit Bhatia should be set aside. 4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submits that Sh. Amit Bhat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that the judgment of Larger Bench of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Amrit Lakshmi Machine Works (supra), which was indeed relied by Ld. Advocate, has settled the position that penalty can be imposed on the partner even when the firm has been penalized. Ld. Advocate fairly agrees with this proposition. On the issue of culpability of the appellant, I find that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder law. The appellant also tried his best to conceal the relevant records and played a pivotal role in evasion of duty with the help of middlemen, second stage dealers and buyers. 7. In these circumstances, I find that the first appellate authority has correctly upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant and impugned order therefore requires no interference. 8. In the result, the appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
