9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sand rupees], whichever is greater. It is clear on plain reading of the above-mentioned provisions and the facts of the case penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 26 operate in different fields. It is not correct to say that the penalties now imposed on the partners/ appellant will amount to double penalty for the same offence. It is clear that the provisions involved are different and the nature of offence sought to be penalized is also different. The penalties imposed on the appellants are reduced to ₹ 50,000/- each, u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeals No. 3642 and 3968 of 2010 (SM) - A/53333-53334/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 16-5-2017 - Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Tec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding the impugned order. 2. In the present appeal both the appellants are against imposition of penalties on them, in their capacity as partners of the manufacturing firm. The learned Counsel submitted that the manufacturing unit is a partnership firm made up of both the appellants as partners. Since penalty under the manufacturing unit has been imposed, further penalty on the partners/appellants cannot be imposed. He relied on the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. CCE reported in 2013 (287) E.L.T. 54 (P H). Alternatively he also submitted that if penalties are leviable on the appellants, considering that the main manufacturing firm itself got the matter closed on payment of 25% of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the duty on such goods or [two thousand rupees], whichever is greater. 5. It is clear on plain reading of the above-mentioned provisions and the facts of the case penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 26 operate in different fields. It is not correct to say that the penalties now imposed on the partners/ appellant will amount to double penalty for the same offence. It is clear that the provisions involved are different and the nature of offence sought to be penalized is also different. The case law relied upon by the appellant has no relevance to the facts of the present case as is apparent by the above discussion. As such, I hold that the penalties are imposable on the partners in the present case. 6. The learned Counsel pleaded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
