9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to defaulter dated 5th January 2005 (Annexure "A") issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division V, Surat-1, calling upon the petitioner to pay total amount of Rs. 1,38,69,343/-. 2. Heard Mr. N.K. Pahwa, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Malkan on behalf of respondents. For the reasons that follow and taking into consideration the facts of the case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, no demand raised in hands of that assessee can be recovered from the petitioner. 3.1 Inviting attention to Paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No. 3, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that the averment of the petitioner that there is no nexus with M/s. Rangoli Prints, is denied by referring to a communication dated 15th April, 2003 stated to have been tendere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That the law requires that liability incurred by a firm should be discharged by the partner of that firm and in the circumstances, the respondent authorities were entitled to proceed to make recovery from the firm and/or the partners jointly and severally. Referring to receipt dated 13th January, 2004 (Annexure "E") for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, it was submitted on behalf of respondents that the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue is based on one Shri Rajesh Jain, being an erstwhile partner of M/s. Rangoli Prints, and presently, being a partner of the petitioner firm having committed to discharge liability of M/s. Rangoli Prints. As noted hereinbefore, despite categorical statement made in the affidavit in rejoinder denying any undertaking by Shri Rajesh Jain vide letter dated 15th April, 2003, respondents have fail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner firm, Shri Rajesh Jain, as an erstwhile partner of M/s. Rangoli Prints, and M/s. Rangoli Prints are three different entities and the action of the respondent authorities in treating all the three as one and the same, is not tenable in law. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned notice dated 5th January, 2005 issued by Respondent No. 3 is bad in law, against the principles of natural ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
