2016 (11) TMI 572 - AT - Central Excise

Withdrawal of appeal No. E/1447/2009 - it has becomes infructuous since the Assistant Commissioner has already issued denovo order-in-original on remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order-in-appeal - The Ld. Authorised Representative has no objection to the same - appeal dismissed. Appeal No. E/1448/2009 - imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,50,000/- on the Shri Rashikbhai M Patel, partner of M/s. Prime Containers - Held that - since penalty has been imposed on M/s Prime Containers, which is a partnership firm, there cannot be separate penalty on the partner. However, the Ld. Counsel seeks time to produce the denovo adjudication order of the Assistant Commissioner wherein penalty has been imposed on the partnership firm. The Ld. Authorised Representative has no objection for granting time to the ld. Counsel - Appeal No. E/1448/2009 is adjourned to 06.10.2016

Summary

Issues:
1. Withdrawal of appeal by M/s Prime Containers.
2. Imposition of penalty on partner of M/s Prime Containers.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the withdrawal of appeal No. E/1447/2009 by M/s Prime Containers due to the issuance of a denovo order-in-original by the Assistant Commissioner. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants requested to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, as agreed upon by the Ld. Authorised Representative.

2. The second issue pertains to appeal No. E/1448/2009 concerning the imposition of a penalty of ?1,50,000 on the partner of M/s Prime Containers, Shri Rashikbhai M Patel. The Ld. Counsel argued that since a penalty had already been imposed on the partnership firm, M/s Prime Containers, there should not be a separate penalty on the partner. The Ld. Counsel sought time to produce the denovo adjudication order of the Assistant Commissioner where the penalty was imposed on the partnership firm. The appeal was adjourned to 06.10.2016 to allow time for the submission of the relevant documents.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the withdrawal of one appeal by M/s Prime Containers and the issue of imposing a penalty on the partner of the firm in another appeal. The decision to dismiss one appeal and adjourn the other for further evidence indicates a detailed consideration of the legal aspects involved in the case.