9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd - [2014 (11) TMI 150 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD]. So, the confiscation and and imposition of redemption fine are not sustainable. Regarding imposition of penalty on the Authorised Signatory-cum-Partner of the Appellant No.1, the learned Authorised Representative raised serious objection. He submits that it is settled by various decisions of the Tribunal that penalty is imposable on the partner even when penalty is imposed on partnership firm. In this context, he drew attention of the Bench to the relevant decision as referred in the adjudication order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the penalty was imposed on the partnership under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944 and therefore the penalty imposed on the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are clandestinely removed by the appellant. 4. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 11,53,984.00 along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1944. It has also confiscated the goods, and since goods are not available physically, a redemption fine of ₹ 11,00,000.00 was imposed. Penalty of ₹ 3,00,000.00 was imposed on the appellant No.2 Mr. Ilyas Gulambhai Kapadia, Partner-cum-Authorised Signatory of the Appellant No.1 under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. 5. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative raised serious objection. He submits that it is settled by various decisions of the Tribunal that penalty is imposable on the partner even when penalty is imposed on partnership firm. In this context, he drew attention of the Bench to the relevant decision as referred in the adjudication order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the penalty was imposed on the partnership under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944 and therefore the penalty imposed on the partner under Rule 209A of erstwhile rules is not justified. The appellant referred to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pravin N. Shah Vs CESTAT - 2014 (305) ELT 480 (Guj). The relevant portion of the said decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
