9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 1194 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of penalty u/r 26 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Status of the entity - appellants are the partnership firms - HELD THAT - The penal provisions are applicable only in case of natural person and not for the artificial person namely the incorporated company or a partnership firm. Admittedly, in this case the appellants are the partnership firms. Since, they are not the natural persons, the provisions of Rule 26 cannot be invoked for imposition of penalty on them. This Tribunal in the case of WOODMEN INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA 2003 (9) TMI 228 - CESTAT, KOLKATA has dealt with the identical set of facts in context with imposition of penalty under Rule 26 ibid on the partnership firm and has held that penalty cannot be imposed on the firm and only the individual person is exposed to the penal consequences provided therein. The imposition of penalty under Rule 26 ibid on the appellants is upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved: Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on partnership firms.
Analysis: 1. Applicability of Rule 26: The main issue in this case is whether Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which pertains to the imposition of penalties for certain offenses, is applicable to partnership firms or only to natural individuals. The appellants argued that Rule 26 should apply only to natural persons and not artificial entities like partnership firms. The Tribunal examined the statutory provision of Rule 26 and concluded that the penal provisions therein are indeed applicable only to natural persons and not to artificial entities like partnership firms. This interpretation was supported by previous judgments and precedents cited by the appellants, which emphasized that penalties under Rule 26 can only be imposed on individual persons and not on artificial entities. 2. Precedents and Judicial Interpretation: The Tribunal referred to various judgments to support its decision. It cited the case of Woodmen Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, where it was held that penalties under Rule 26 cannot be imposed on partnership firms, only on individual persons. Additionally, a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in a separate case held that penalties under Rule 26 can only be imposed on natural persons, not artificial entities like companies. The Tribunal also distinguished the judgments relied upon by the Revenue, stating that they were not directly applicable to the present case as they dealt with different legal provisions or contexts. 3. Decision and Conclusion: After considering the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the imposition of penalty under Rule 26 on the partnership firms in this case was not valid. Therefore, the impugned order upholding the penalty was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants regarding the imposition of penalty only. The Tribunal's decision was based on the clear interpretation of Rule 26 and the consistent judicial precedents supporting the view that penalties under this rule are meant for natural persons and not artificial entities like partnership firms. In summary, the Tribunal ruled that penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be imposed on partnership firms as they are artificial entities, and the rule applies only to natural individuals. The decision was supported by previous judgments and precedents, which established that penalties under Rule 26 are specifically for natural persons. The impugned order imposing penalties on the partnership firms was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants on the issue of penalty imposition only.
|
