9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the partnership firm had already paid the duty before issue of the show cause notice in order to avoid legal proceedings. In such situation, imposition of separate penalty on the partner of the firm is not justified. - Appeal No. : E/1246-1249/2008, E/697/2009 - Order No. A/10054-10058/2016 - Dated:- 22-1-2016 - MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri R K Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri T K Sikdar, Authorised Representative ORDER PER : MR.P.K. DAS, These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal. 2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that M/s Sharp Engineers (hereinafter referred to as the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s respectively. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeals filed by the appellants. M/s Sharp Engineers filed two appeals alongwith the appeals of other three appellants before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that as they have already paid the entire amount of duty alongwith interest and penalty of 25% of the duty, no Show cause notice should be issued under Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act 1944. He further submits that both the authorities below had not given the option to pay penalty of 25% duty as provided under Section 11AC of the Act. It is submitted that as the penalty was imposed on the partnership firm, no separate penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of the show cause notice in order to avoid legal proceedings. In such situation, imposition of separate penalty on the partner of the firm is not justified. The Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pravin N Shah (Supra) held that once partnership firm penalized, separate penalty not imposable upon partner of the firm because the partner is not a separate legal entity. Regarding imposition of penalty on the proprietors of the two dummy units, the main contention of the Ld Authorised Representative for Revenue that penalty was imposed not on the units but on the proprietor. It is well settled that there is no difference between the proprietor and the proprietorship firm. It is held by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Umiya Ceramics (Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
