2016 (12) TMI 1446 - HC - Central Excise

Evasion of duty - Underbilling - Penalty - Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty on the partner and partnership Firm simultaneously under Central Excise Act 1944? - Held that - In the case of Textoplast Industries and Anr. Versus Addl. Commissioner of Custom 2011 (7) TMI 402 - Bombay High Court it has been held that for the purpose of imposing penalty the adjudicating authority under Customs Act 1962 may in an appropriate case impose a penalty both upon a partnership Firm as well as on the partners and whether the facts and circumstances of a case warrant imposition of penalty both on the Firm and its partners should be decided on the facts of each case. In the considered opinion of the Court in the light of the above cited judgments penalty on the partner as well as the partnership Firm can be simultaneously imposed and of course imposition of penalty both on the Firm and its partners depends upon the facts of each case - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on partner and partnership firm simultaneously under Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the imposition of penalty on both the partner and the partnership firm under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case involved M/s. Paragon Paper Private Limited (PPPL) selling Duplex Boards at undervalued prices through M/s. Shri Jaya Muruga Paper Mart (SJPM), where the appellant was a partner, resulting in evasion of central excise duty. The authorities seized incriminating documents and recorded statements, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent penalties. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty amount, penalties, and interest, imposing penalties on PPPL, its director, SJPM, the appellant, and others under relevant sections and rules.

2. SJPM, the appellant, and others appealed the order before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who reduced some penalties. The appellant further appealed to the CESTAT, arguing against the imposition of penalties on partners when the partnership firm was penalized. The CESTAT reduced the penalties imposed by the appellate authority, including the penalty on the appellant, to a uniform amount of ?25,000. The appellant contended that since neither the firm nor the partners benefited from the transaction, penalties on partners should not be separate from the firm's penalty.

3. The CESTAT's decision was challenged in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the High Court. The appellant argued that penalties on partners should not be imposed when the partnership firm is penalized. The respondents cited precedents from the Bombay High Court to support simultaneous imposition of penalties on partners and the firm under specific circumstances. The High Court examined the arguments, reviewed the case materials, and referenced the Bombay High Court judgments. The Court concluded that penalties on partners and the partnership firm could be imposed simultaneously based on the facts of each case. The Court upheld the order passed by the CESTAT, dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalties imposed in the final order without awarding costs to any party.