9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al has been filed by the Revenue against OIA No. RS/116/SRT-I/2006 dated 28.09.2006. Under this OIA dated 28.09.2006, the first appellate authority has upheld the OIO dated 31.08.204 passed by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority under OIO dated 31.08.2004 has not imposed any penalty upon Shri Anand Mahendra Kapadia, partner of M/s. D.K. Polyn Industries (100% EOU) on the ground that no separate penalty can be imposed on the partner when a penalty has already been imposed upon the partnership firm. Revenue has filed this appeal on the ground that CESTAT in many cases has held that a separate penalty upon the partner can be imposed in addition to penalty imposed upon the partnership concern if clear-cut role is played by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant and is reproduced below:- 6. So far as imposition of penalty upon the Partner of the main appellant is concerned, Hon'ble Bombay High Court, after relying upon the Apex Court s judgment in the case of Textoplast Industries vs. Additional Commissioner of Customs (supra), has held in Para 17 as follows:- 17. While concluding, it would be necessary to advert to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Jupiter Exports - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.). In that case, a notice to show cause was issued by the Commissioner of Customs on an allegation of the misuse of the DEEC Scheme by adopting fraudulent means to obtain a higher entitlement in respect of duty free import. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of the Gujarat High Court relied upon the general principle in the law of partnership that a firm has no legal existence apart from its partners and held that once a penalty was levied on the firm, it amounted to a levy on the partners and hence, there would be no question of penalizing the partners separately. The Gujarat High Court held that the explanation in Section 140 was for the purposes of liability in respect of commission of offences under the Act whereas there was no such corresponding provision in relation to the imposition of a penalty under the Act. The Gujarat High Court has also not considered the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Standard Chartered Bank case. As a matter of fact, in a judgment of the Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
