9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the partners of the appellant firm. The appellant could not produce any proof that against the goods cleared under any invoices were issued. Therefore, it is clear that the goods cleared under challan, there were no invoices issued by the appellant. Consequently, no excise duty was paid. Therefore, this is a clear case of clandestine removal of goods. Penalty on partner - HELD THAT:- The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 17.03.2012, an enquiry was conducted. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated. The Adjudication Authority dropped the demand of ₹ 13,60,895/- related to notification no. 12/2012. Further, a demand of ₹ 1,20,465/- against the clandestine removal of the goods was confirmed. Consequently, penalty of equal amount was also confirmed. Penalty was also imposed on the partner of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Counsel that whether there is any correlation or reconciliation between the so called delivery challan and invoices were submitted to the lower authority. He fairly denied any such excercise done by the appellant. 3. Shri S.N. Gohil, Ld. Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He invited my attention to the Show Cause Notice as well as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.1 As regard the appeal filed by partner, I find that the partnership firm has already been penalized. There cannot be separate penalty against the partner as held in the judgment in the case of Shri Pravin N. Shah vs. CESTAT 2014 (305) E.L.T. 480 (Guj.). As a result, appeal no. E/ 16276/2018 on F Tech Engineering Co. is dismissed. Appeal no. E/12677/2017 filed by the Shri Jignesh Pambhar is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
