9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was supposed to give the details of methodology in stock taking and also allowed the cross-examination of panchas. In this fact, the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudication authority for reconsideration after allowing the cross examination of panchas. It is settled law that once the penalty is imposed on the partnership firm it s partner cannot be imposed penalty separately. This issue has been considered and settled by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS JAI PRAKASH MOTWANI [ 2009 (1) TMI 501 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . No penalty is imposable on Shri. Amit Gupta - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to adjudicating authority. - Excise Appeal No. 10449 of 2019 With Excise Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Amit Gupta from 50,000/- to 20,000/-. However, remaining part of the order was upheld therefore the present appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Shri. Ashish K Singh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the difference in stock was arrived at without carrying out the physical stock of the finished goods. He submits that though investigating officers made Shri. Amit Gupta agrees about the difference in stock and also the manner of the stock taking but the fact remains that no physical stock was taken. The manner was also not specified. He submits that it was impossible to take the physical stock of huge quantity of 625.710 MT which appeared in the RG-1 register. Merely because Shri. Amit Gupta in his statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of panchas. As regard appeal of Shri. Amit Gupta partner of M/s A Kumar Industries, I find that without going into the merit, it is settled law that once the penalty is imposed on the partnership firm it s partner cannot be imposed penalty separately. This issue has been considered and settled by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jai Prakash Motwani 2010 (258) ELT 204 (Guj.). 5. Considering the said judgment I am of the view that no penalty is imposable on Shri. Amit Gupta. As per my above discussion and finding I passed the following order: 1)Appeal No. E/10449/2019 of A Kumar Industries is allowed by way of remand to adjudicating authority 2) Appeals No. E/10443/2019 of Shri. Amit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
