9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le only on a person and not on a firm.' Thus, penalty under 209A which is pari materia of Rule 26, penalty cannot be imposed on partnership firm. As regard the penalty on the partner, it is found that it is settled by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jay Prakash Motwani [ 2009 (1) TMI 501 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] that in case of partnership firm penalty on the partner cannot be imposed. Accordingly, penalties on both the appellants are not sustainable only on the above finding. The penalties are set aside - appeal allowed. - HON'BLE MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) , MR. RAMESH NAIR Shri Rahul Gajera , Advocate appeared for the Appellant Smt. Sunita Menon , Superintendent ( AR ) appeared for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n relation to the Appellant is a non-speaking order since it does not give any finding on most of the Appellants submissions reproduced in Paras 8.8.1 to 8.8.6 of the Order and is therefore liable to be set aside on this ground itself. 2. Shri Rahul Gajera, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that it is not established by evidence that the appellant had paid cash amount over and above the price indicated in the excise invoice issued by 100% EOU Unimin India Limited towards the price of the goods purchased by the appellant from the said 100% EOU. Therefore, the entire case against the appellant fails. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) Bajrangbali Ingots Steel P. Ltd v CCE 2019 (1) TMI 966-CESTAT-NEW ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts: a) Alsa Marine Harvests Ltd v CC 2003 (158) ELT 741 b) Sandur Laminates Ltd v CCE 2001 (133) ELT 107 c) Bee International v CCE 2007 (220) ELT 128. 2.3 Alternatively, he submits that in any event, no penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 can be imposed on a partnership firm. In this regard the he placed reliance on the following judgments:- a) Woodmen Industries v Commissioner- 2004 (164) ELT 339 b) Commissioner v Woodmen Industries 2004 (170) ELT A307 c) R.S.Jhaveri Co Exports v CCE 2010 (252) ELT 375. 3. Smt. Sunita Menon, Learned Superintendent(AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the both the sides and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtificate issued by the jurisdictional Range Officers. It has been pleaded that since the CT-2/Annexure I certificate mentioned the name of the unit - M/s. I.C. Textiles as the unit from which the cotton yarn was to be purchased without payment of C.E. duty, the department knew that the goods are being acquired from a 100% EOU and therefore their bona fide intentions cannot be suspected. However, I find that in none of the CT-2/Annexure I certificate, the fact that M/s. I.C. Textiles is a 100% EOU is mentioned. The Noticee No. 2 to 7 sought CT-2/Annexure I certificates for purchase of cotton yarn free from C.E. duty under Rule 13(I)(b) of the CER, 1944/Rule 19(2) of CER, 2001/2002 from M/s. I.C. Textiles situated at National Highway No. 8, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) that the yarn was purchased from I.C. Textiles under Annexure I/CT-2 Certificate, duly complying with the statutory provisions of Central Excise. (ii) CT-2 Certificate/Annexure I were issued by the Department after verifying the statutory procedures, safeguards laid down in the law. (iii) There is no evidence of any connivance between the proper officers and the appellant. (iv) That there is no provisions in the said Annexure I to mention or disclose the information about 100% EOU status of the supplier of the goods. (v) That the copies of invoices received from the said M/s. I.C. Textiles were being supplied to the Department. Such invoices had very prominent display of the words 100% EOU . As such it cannot be said that the appellants c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in manufacture and export of final product. As such, there was no intention on their part to evade duty and the entire situation being Revenue neutral, no penalty can be imposed upon them. They have relied upon the precedent decisions in support of the above contention. 5. After having appreciated the statements made by the appellant and after having gone through the impugned order, which stand reiterated by learned SDR, we find that procurement of yarn was made by the appellant on the basis of Annexure I/CT-2 certificate issued by the Revenue itself. As is clear from the relevant paragraph reproduced above, Revenue s only objection is that the fact of the supplier unit being a 100% EOU was never disclosed to them. We find no merits in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
