9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a habitual offender and other circumstances supported with evidences, confiscation of plant and machinery is unsustainable in law and accordingly set aside. Penalties imposed on partners as well as on firm - Held that: - personal penalty had been imposed both on the partnership firm M/s National Metal Industries as well as on its partners viz. Shri Santosh Mittal and Shri Rajendra Agarwal which is contrary to the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Santosh Textiles [2011 (3) TMI 1649 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - penalty imposed on the partners are set aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/216-218/2008-SMC - A/11719-11721/2016 - Dated:- 31-8-2016 - DR. D.M. MISRA, ME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the said order, the Appellant Company approached this Tribunal and this Tribunal remanded the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals), with direction to deposit ₹ 2 lakhs vide order dt.18.08.2006. On compliance of the direction of pre-deposit, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the issue on merit and disposed their appeal. Hence the present appeals. 3. The learned Advocate Shri Shri Prakash Shah assisted by Rahul Gajera, Advocate for the Appellants submit that in the present appeal filed by the Appellant Company, the liability of duty and penalty is not disputed, but since an option to pay 25% of the penalty imposed has not been extended by both the authorities below, hence, the said right is admissible to them. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Commissioner(Appeals). 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. I find that both the authorities below have not extended the benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The said right is admissible to the Appellant company, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Santosh Textiles (supra) . accordingly, the Appellants discharge 25% of the penalty on fulfillment of the conditions laid down therein. Hence, the Appellant Company is eligible to discharge 25% of the penalty imposed subject to fulfillment of conditions. Also, I find that in absence of cogent evidences that the Appellant company is a habitual offender and other circumstances s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
