9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatements of various persons connected to both the units including the partners were recorded. As a follow up action the premises of supplier M/s. Hema Exports was also conducted on 25.06.2003 and statement of partner of the unit was also recorded. In the investigation, it was established that the appellant had shown paper transactions of the duty free goods procured from the supplier M/s. Hema Exports without physically receipt of the goods on monetary considerations from the said supplier who used to divert goods to local market. After completion of investigation and issuance of show cause notice dated 31.03.2005 to various offenders/ notices including the appellants resulting the adjudication of the matter vide order-in-original dated 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by preparing fake documents like AR3A, Central Excise invoice purportedly showing the clearance to appellants unit M/s. Al-Amin Exports and M/s. Sunshine Overseas both 100% EOUs did not receive any goods against the aforesaid AR3A, Invoices. She submits that without involvement of both the appellants it would not have been possible for M/s. Hema Exports to divert the goods in the open market, therefore, penalty under Rule 26 is rightly imposed on the appellants. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. I find that limited issue to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether the appellants are liable to penalty under Section 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the ingredients of Rule 26 are existing in the offence committed by the appellants. Therefore, I hold that the appellant M/s. Ai-Amin Exports and M/s. Sunshine Overseas were rightly imposed with the penalties under Rule 26. 5. As regards the other appellants, who are partners of a partnership firm, I find that once the penalty was imposed on a partnership firm, no separate penalty should be imposed on the partners separately for the reason that the partnership firm itself is consisting of partners. This issue has been considered by the jurisdictional High court in the case of CCE vs. Jai Prakash Motwani - 2010 (258) ELT 204 (Guj) wherein it was held that once penalty was imposed on the partnership firm no separate penalty should be impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
