TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 350 - 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 the penalties imposed on Mr. Jasbir Singh Siwach and Ms. Kiran S Siwach, partners of M/s Classic Packaging Industry are not sustainable and are hereby set aside. Penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 1434 of 2010 - A/86213/2019 - Dated:- 5-7-2019 - MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri C.S. Biradar, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 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 Appellants, the Commissioner vide impugned order upheld the order-in-original dated 30.11.2009, but reduced the penalty on Mr. Jasbir Singh Siwach Ms. Kiran S Siwach, from ₹ 5,30,567/- to ₹ 2 lakhs. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of Revenue and perused the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posable 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, the issue before the Hon ble High Court was whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs imposed on the Appellants therein under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 under the Rule 26 of the new Central Excise Rules? The Hon ble High Court in that matter answered the question in favour of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
