2011 (1) TMI 129 - AT - Central Excise

Demand and penalty - part of the duty during the course of investigation and paid the balance amount of duty and 25% of total duty amount of proposed demand as penalty within the time limit specified under proviso to Section 11A(2) - partnership firm was the person from whom the duty demand was proposed and other persons were asked to show cause why the penalties should not be imposed on them - no justification on the part of the original authority for imposition of penalties on the partners - no penalties were imposable on the respondents Appeal rejected

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against setting aside penalties on partners of a partnership firm.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside penalties of Rs.2 lakhs each on two partners of a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing. The adjudicating authority had imposed penalties on the partners individually under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The department contended that the partners, as separate legal entities, could be penalized despite the firm being penalized. They relied on precedents where penalties on partners were upheld for their involvement in violations. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties, leading to the department's appeals.

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The section deals with the issuance of show cause notices for demanding duty and penalties. The department argued that partners could be penalized individually, citing precedents to support their stance. On the other hand, the Commissioner (Appeals) supported by the respondent's advocate contended that the proceedings concluded against both the partnership firm and its partners as per the proviso to Section 11A(2). The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the penalties were integrally connected to the duty demand proposed under Section 11A.

The Tribunal carefully analyzed the submissions and the relevant legal provisions. It noted that the duty demand was against the partnership firm, and the partners were asked to show cause for penalties. The original authority closed the proceedings against the firm after payment, as per the proviso to Section 11A(2, which deems proceedings conclusive for all noticees. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that no penalties were warranted on the partners. The Tribunal highlighted that the imposition of penalties on partners was not justified as the proceedings were linked to the duty demand against the firm. The Tribunal emphasized that the specific provision in Section 11A(2) governed the situation, rendering the precedents cited by the department irrelevant.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no valid reasons to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order and rejected the department's appeals. The cross objections were also disposed of accordingly.