2003 (10) TMI 654 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order confirming demand of excise duty and reducing penalty on the appellant.
2. Appeal challenging penalty imposed on one of the partners and failure to consider his appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 1:
The first issue pertains to the appeal against the order confirming the demand of excise duty and reducing the penalty on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the demand of excise duty of Rs. 49,692 and reduced the penalty on the appellant to Rs. 15,000 under Rule 173-Q read with Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant, a partnership firm, and one of its partners, Shri Ajay Gupta, had filed joint appeals against this order. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had treated the appeal only as one filed by the firm, disregarding the partner's appeal. The Tribunal noted that a joint appeal can indeed be filed by a firm and its partners, as established in the case of Universal Automobile & Ancillary Ltd. v. CCE & C [1990 (47) E.L.T. 79 (Tribunal)]. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to treat the appeal as a joint appeal of the firm and its partner, provided the cause title of the Memorandum of Appeal is amended to include the partner's name as a co-appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to dispose of the joint appeal on its merits after the necessary amendment, ensuring the appellants are given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolves around the appeal challenging the penalty imposed on one of the partners, Shri Ajay Gupta, under Rule 209A by the original authority. The partner's appeal also raised concerns about the Commissioner (Appeals) not considering his appeal separately. Upon examination of the records, it was found that the Memorandum of Appeal was indeed a joint appeal filed by the firm and Shri Ajay Gupta. Despite this, the Commissioner (Appeals) had treated the appeal solely as one filed by the firm. The Tribunal, relying on legal precedent, determined that joint appeals can be filed by firms and their partners. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal as a joint appeal of the firm and its partner, subject to the amendment of the cause title in the Memorandum of Appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to reevaluate the joint appeal on its merits after the necessary amendment, ensuring both appellants are given a fair opportunity to present their case.

By addressing these issues comprehensively and providing detailed analysis based on legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal's judgment sought to uphold the principles of natural justice and fairness in the adjudication of excise duty demands and penalties in the context of joint appeals by partnership firms and their partners.