9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord, whereby, the demand could be further reduced. Hence, their request for remand of the case of again, in my view, would not resolve the dispute but increase the life of litigation. Imposition of penalty on the partnership firm and on partner - Held that: - penalty cannot be imposed both on partnership firm as well as on the partner in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pravin N. Shah's case [2012 (7) TMI 850 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Appeal partly allowed - the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of extending the benefit of discharging 25% of penalty, subject to fulfilment of the conditions - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/12100-12101/2013 - A/11630-11631/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... changed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred Appeals before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who inturn, rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that while computing the demand, in denovo proceeding, the adjudicating authority had not considered certain evidences of resale of the Bags resulting into erroneous confirmation of demand. He prays that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for re-consideration of the evidences and pass an appropriate order, accordingly. Further, it is submitted that imposition of penalty on the partnership firm and on partner is unsustainable in law in view of the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant that they would be eligible to discharge 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein, in view of the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Santosh Textile Mills (supra). Further, I find force in their contention that penalty cannot be imposed both on partnership firm as well as on the partner in view of the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Pravin N. Shah s case s (supra). Consequently, the appeal filed by Shree Manubhai D Patel is allowed and the appeal filed by the company is partly allowed to the extent of allowing the benefit of discharging 25% penalty imposed subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
