9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to be set aside. Penalty on Shri Khalil - HELD THAT:- Shri Khalil was giving conflicting statements; Shri Khalil met Shri Mr. Simon many times; he facilitated the attempted export of restricted item. On-going through the record of the case, Shri Khalil did not submit anything to absolve himself of the allegations - Shri Khalil is not made of to be the main culprit and nothing has been placed on record to show as to how he was to be benefitted in the illegal export, the penalty imposed on Shri Khalil needs to be reduced - the penalty imposed on Shri Khalil reduced to ₹ 5 lakhs. Appeal allowed in part. - Custom Appeal No. 330, 331 of 2012 - A/85819-85820/2019 - Dated:- 1-5-2019 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to impose penalty on the firm. It is not legally tenable as it is a settled law that the proprietor and proprietorship concern are one and the same and that they cannot be differentiated. He relied upon the following cases (i). AIR 2007 SC 1634 Raghu Lakshmi Narayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes (ii). Bombay High Court Judgement in the case of Essar Shipping Limited Vs RC Coastal Exports Pvt Ltd Francis Castellino (Executive Application No 90/2006) (iii) Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs CCE ELT 2013 (287) 54 P H (iv) Sai Trading Co Vs CC Indore 2007 (215) ELT 193(Tri-Del) (v) Shah Mehta 2005 (192) ELT 928 (Tri-Mum) 3.1 Learned Counsel for Shri Khalil Ali Mohammad Dar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er proceeded to impose penalty on the proprietorship concern. We find that it is a settled legal position that the proprietor and the concern are not deferent entities. They are one and the same. It is not legally correct to impose penalty on the form while holding that the proprietor had no role in the affair at all. We find that this principle has been upheld by various judicial forum. We find that Tribunal in the case of Shah and Mehta (supra) held that iii) For penalty on partnership firms as arrived at, would call for a culpable mental state and a Partnership firm, in the facts herein or in law cannot be held to be having the same. The individual personality of a partnership firm like that of a Company is not clearly r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
