9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judication proceedings, the firm deposited the amount claimed and that the Additional Commissioner returned a finding that the proceedings against the firm stands concluded under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but imposed a penalty of ₹ 2 lacs each individually and separately on the partners of the firm. The said order was set aside by the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not justified. - Decided against Revenue. - Central Excise Appeal Nos. 84 and 85 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2011 - Hemant Gupta and G.S. Sandhawalia, JJ. Shri Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the Appellant. JUDGMENT This order will dispose of CEA Nos. 84 and 85 of 2011 as both the appeals arise out of same facts but in the matter of two partners. 2. The appeals have been preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreed with the shortages and paid the duty on the spot on 27-2-2008. Later M/s. Kripalu Steel Industries was called upon as to why the total Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 1762106/- (BED ₹ 1710782 + Ed Cess ₹ 34216/- + Cess ₹ 17108/-) and the deficiency in the payment of Central Excise duty amounting to 218336/- (211976 + 4240 + 2120) on 57.155 M.T. M.S. Ingots and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) on 20-3-2009. It was held that the Rule 26 of the Rules is a penal provision and not the one under which show cause notice can be issued. Since the show cause notice under Section 11A(1) of the Act had been issued and proceedings stand concluded against firm, therefore, penalty proceedings under Rule 26 of the Rules cannot be continued against partners. The said order was affirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
