Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (7) TMI 630

..... sable upon the partner of the firm because partner is not separate legal entity and cannot be equated with the employee of the firm. The Hon’ble High Court in that matter answered the question in favour of the Appellants therein and set aside the penalty on the partners. Similarly, a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of M/S NATIONAL IMPEX AND SHRI UMAR T CHAMADIA VERSUS COMMISSIONERS OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX-DAMAN [2015 (12) TMI 1350 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has held that penalty on partner is not imposable when the firm is penalised under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The authorities below are not justified in imposing the penalty on the partners of M/s. Classic Packaging Industry and therefore .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ,30,567/- with interest under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, appropriated sum of ₹ 3,00,760/- paid by the Appellants and ordered for recovery of balance amount of ₹ 2,29,807/-, imposed penalty of ₹ 5,30,567/- under Section 11AC r/w Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on M/s Classic Packaging Industry, imposed penalty of ₹ 5,30,567/-on Mr. Jasbir Singh Siwach & Ms. Kiran S Siwach, partners of M/s. Classic Packaging Industries under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order-inoriginal M/s. Classic Packaging Industries deposited the entire duty amount of ₹ 5,30,567/- alongwith 25% penalty with interest and therefore on Appeal filed by the Appe .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ed their duty liability and paid the entire amount with interest and penalty, I am not going into the issue of duty demand and am confining the order only to the issue of penalty on the partners. It is settled principle and there are umpteen number of decisions in which it was held that once a firm is penalised, separate penalty is not imposable upon the partner of the firm because partner is not separate legal entity and cannot be equated with the employee of the firm. The Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the matter of Pravin N Shah vs. CESTAT, 2014 (305)ELT 480(Guj.) has held that separate penalty not imposable upon partner of firm because partner is not a separate legal entity and cannot be equated with employee of the firm. In that case, th .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||