9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owingly acquired possession of any goods or was in any manner concerned in transporting, depositing, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any excisable goods which he knew or had reason to believe are liable for confiscation. In view of this, I am of the view that imposition of penalty on Shri M.K. Jain was not called for and the impugned order upholding the same is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/167/2010-SM(BR) - 43/2012-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 16-12-2011 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mrs. R. Jagdev, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER In this case the appellant, a partnership firm of which one partner is Shri M.K. Jain and which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides. 3. Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that when penalty had been imposed on the appellant-firm which is a partnership firm, separate penalty on Shri M.K. Jain, Partner of the firm could not be imposed, that in this regard he relies upon the judgments of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE C, Surat-I v. Mohammed Farookh Mohammed Ghani reported in 2010 (259) E.L.T. 179 (Guj.), in which it was held that there is no question of penalising partners separately for the same contravention, unless intention to treat firm and partners as distinct entities is borne out from statute itself, that same view was taken by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CC (E.P.) v. Jupiter Exports r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on partnership firm as well as partners separately. She emphasized that Shri M.K. Jain, the partner of the appellant firm was aware of the fact that Cenvat credit had been availed on the basis of certain invoices received from certain registered dealers without receiving any material and this justifies the imposition of penalty on him under Rule 26 as well as Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. While for the contravention of the same provisions of a particular Rule separate penalty on a partnership firm as well as partner may not be called for, but when the nature of contravention of a partnership firm and partner is different, in my view, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
