9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that order is set aside and in which it included a personal penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs, we do not see how the Department can pursue that demand by attaching the bank account of the petitioner. More so, the petitioner's retirement from the firm with effect from 27th April 1990 is undisputed. Therefore, the request to the petitioner to pay a sum which is of ₹ 2 lakhs, but as a penalty under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business, any liability of the firm can be fastened on to him but the respondents/revenue are seeking to recover an amount of penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/(Rupees Two lakhs) levied on the petitioner as a partner of M/s. Mukesh Dye Works under the provisions of Section 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944. Though no show cause notice was addressed to the petitioner in his capacity as a partner, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the balance sum is of ₹ 7,76,708/which the petitioner will pay in a period of six months, but on payment, the attachment be raised. 5. On all these factual matters and aspects, we do not find that in the affidavit in reply, the respondents have brought material controverting it. In fact, it is stated that an order in original was passed confirming the demand against which an appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all. The matter pertains to another case which was booked against the firm and thereafter, the demand in pursuance thereof raised by the order in original was set aside by the Tribunal. 6. Once that order is set aside and in which it included a personal penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs, we do not see how the Department can pursue that demand by attaching the bank account of the petitioner. More ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
