Separate penalty on a partner was unsustainable where the partnership firm had already been penalised for the same excise offence.

A separate penalty on a partner under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where the partnership firm had already been penalised for the same manufacture and removal of excisable goods. The order imposed liability on the partner solely by reason of his status as a partner and alleged participation, but disclosed no independent basis for distinct personal culpability. In the absence of separate personal liability, the personal penalty could not be sustained alongside the firm's penalty for the same offence, and it was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a separate penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be imposed on a partner when penalty had already been imposed on the partnership firm for the same manufacture and removal of excisable goods.

Analysis: The penalty on the appellant was imposed only because he was a partner of the firm and had allegedly taken part in the manufacture and removal of goods. The order did not disclose any independent basis for treating him separately from the firm. In view of the settled position that penalty cannot be sustained both against the partnership firm and its partners for the same offence in these circumstances, the separate personal penalty was not justified.

Conclusion: The separate penalty on the partner was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A partner cannot be separately penalised for the same excise offence where the penalty has already been imposed on the partnership firm and no independent personal liability is established.

---