2007 (11) TMI 536 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Duty Demand, Rejects Appeal on Partner's Penalty

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-II Versus HARRODS GARMENTS

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-II Versus HARRODS GARMENTS - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 726 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order, Request for adjournment, Penalty imposition on partner, Tribunal's decision applicability.Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order:The Appellate Tribunal heard the department's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The original authority had confirmed a duty demand and penalty on the respondent, along with a penalty on the partner of the appellant-company. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand and penalty on the firm but set aside the penalty on the partner. The department was aggrieved by this decision and sought restoration of the penalty on the partner. The learned SDR supported the penalty imposition on the partner, citing the Tribunal's decision in a relevant case. However, the Tribunal found no valid reasons to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and rejected the department's appeal, considering the evidence and the partner's role as per the impugned order.Request for adjournment:The learned advocate representing the respondent requested an adjournment, which was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the respondent's advocate.Penalty imposition on partner:The original authority had imposed a penalty on the partner of the appellant-company along with the duty demand and penalty on the firm. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand and penalty on the firm but set aside the penalty on the partner. The Tribunal analyzed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and found that since the firm had already been penalized, imposing a separate penalty on the partner was not justifiable. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to support this decision and concluded that the penalty on the partner should be set aside.Tribunal's decision applicability:The Tribunal discussed a previous decision related to the presumption of guilt when an offence is committed by a company and its implications on individuals associated with the company. However, the Tribunal noted that this decision was not directly relevant to the present case. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision to set aside the penalty on the partner was based on the specific circumstances and evidence in this case, without delving into the merits of the case against the appellant-firm. The Tribunal rejected the department's appeal seeking restoration of the penalty on the respondent, emphasizing the decision's basis on the evidence and the role of the partner as outlined in the impugned order.