9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Pravin N. Shah vs. CESTAT (2012 (7) TMI 850 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) held that once the firm is penalised, separate penalty is not imposable upon partner of the firm, as the partner is not a separate legal entity and cannot be equated with employee of firm. - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. : E/1055-1056/2009 - ORDER No. A/10133-10137 / 2015 - Dated:- 11-2-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, J. For The Assesseet : Shri K.I., Vyas, Advocate For The Revenue : Shri K. Sivakumar, A.R. Per : Mr. P.K. Das; These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee M/s. Shyam Steel Bars is engaged in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, as per Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessees filed appeal against demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty and Shri Praveen Singh Chauhan filed appeal against imposition of penalty. Revenue has also filed appeals against setting aside the penalties and to allow option to pay penalty 25% of duty to the assessee. 4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the assessee fairly submits that they have paid the entire amount of duty alongwith interest and penalty of 25% of the duty, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of Commissioner (Appeals). He further submits that they have filed appeals to the extent that they are eligible to avail modvat credit of ₹ 5, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that the appellant has deposited the entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty of 25% of the duty within 30 days from the date of communication of the order of Commissioner (Appeals). It is seen that the adjudicating authority had not allowed the option of payment of penalty 25% of the duty as provided under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, in the adjudication order. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Daman vs. R.A. Shaikh Paper Mills Pvt. Limited - 2010 (259) ELT 53 (Guj.) had held this issue in favour of the assessee. So, the appeal of the Revenue on this issue is not sustainable. 8. The Learned Advocate submits that they are eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the duty paid by the supplier. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
