9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip firm M/s. Magma Industries, the benefit of reduced amount of penalty should also be available to the appellant, being the partner of the said partnership firm. The appellant should be provided with the option to pay reduced amount of penalty - Appeal disposed off. - E/88203/2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/85581/2019 - Dated:- 26-3-2019 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Sunil Agrawal, Advocate for appellant Ms. Anuradha Parab, Authorized Representative for respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Appeals), Bhiwandi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of anti-evasion case booked by DGCEI, MZU, Mumb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant Shri Mukesh S. Jain is the partner of Magma Industries and since the reduced amount of penalty of ₹ 2,82,177/-(being 25% of duty demand of ₹ 11,28,706/-) has already been paid by the partnership firm, the benefit of such reduced penalty should be available to the appellant. The Learned Advocate has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. ESS Jay Poly Film (P) Ltd. 2010 (249) E.L.T 575 (Tri.-Del.) to state that the benefit of reduced amount of penalty of 25% should also be available to the appellant. 4. On the other hand, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dustries. On perusal of the case records, I find that the appellant had played active role in availment of wrong Cenvat Credit by Magma Industries. Thus, imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the rules on him is justified. However, considering the fact that the adjudication order had imposed penalty of 25% of duty on the partnership firm M/s. Magma Industries, I am of the considered view that the benefit of reduced amount of penalty should also be available to the appellant, being the partner of the said partnership firm. I find that on the identical situation this Tribunal in the case of ESS Jay Poly Film (P) Ltd. (supra) has extended the reduced amount of penalty on the Director of the company. The case laws relied on by the Learned AR f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
