TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has dealt with the identical set of facts in context with imposition of penalty under Rule 26 ibid on the partnership firm and has held that penalty cannot be imposed on the firm and only the individual person is exposed to the penal consequences provided therein. The imposition of penalty under Rule 26 ibid on the appellants is upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 87168 of 2018 and Excise Appeal No. 87203 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/86652-86653/2021 - Dated:- 4-8-2021 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri V.K. Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.K. Hatangadi a/w Shri Shanjay Hasija, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Imposition of penalty under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) N. Chhittranjan Vs. CESTAT, Chennai (2017 (350) ELT 78 (Mad.) (iii) Shree Labdhi Prints Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. S.T., Surat (2014 (308) 178 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 existed at the relevant time is extracted herein below: Rule 26 penalty for certain offences - Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or [two thousan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant. The decisions relied upon by learned AR for Revenue are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the case of Amritlakshmi Machine Works (supra), the issue decided by the Hon ble Bombay High Court is in context with imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and not in relation to imposition of penalty under Rule 26 ibid. Similarly, in the case of N. Chittaranjan (supra), the subject matter of dispute was confined to the quantum of penalty imposed by the department in the adjudication order and not in context with the applicability of the provisions of Rule 26 ibid in case of a partnership firm. In the case Shree Labdhi Prints (supra), the Co-or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
