1989 (11) TMI 194 - AT - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a partner and a partnership firm can jointly file a single appeal against a penalty imposed by the Collector.
2. Whether the principle of joint appeal established in previous cases is applicable in the current scenario.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the permissibility of a partner and a partnership firm filing a joint appeal against a penalty imposed by the Collector. The advocate for the appellants argued that since the penalties were imposed on both the partner and the firm under a single order for the same cause of action, a joint appeal should be allowed. He relied on provisions of the Partnership Act, emphasizing the individual and several liability of partners. The Bench, after considering the arguments and previous decisions, concluded that the cause of action remained the same for the penalties imposed on the partner and the firm. Referring to a previous order, the Bench allowed the joint appeal, stating that where penalties are imposed for the same cause of action under a single order, a joint appeal is permissible.

Issue 2:
The second issue concerns the application of the principle of joint appeal established in previous cases to the current scenario. The Member (J) analyzed the facts of the case, including the allegations in the show cause notice and the findings of the Collector. The allegation of knowingly removing non-duty paid goods by the firm and its partner was substantiated by the Collector. The Member (J) referred to the Criminal Procedure Code's provision for joint trial of persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction. Drawing a parallel, it was argued that as the offence committed by the firm and the partner was the same and in the course of the same transaction, a joint appeal was permissible. The Member (J) directed the appellants to amend the cause title to include the partner's name for the joint appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment allowed the joint appeal by the partner and the partnership firm based on the principle that penalties imposed for the same cause of action under a single order permit a joint appeal. The application of this principle, along with the analysis of the allegations and findings, supported the decision to allow the joint appeal. The direction to amend the cause title ensured compliance with the requirement for both the firm and the partner to be appellants in the memorandum of appeal.