Penalty under Rule 209A cannot be imposed on a partnership firm, with precedent treated as governing the liability question.

Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held not sustainable against a partnership firm, because the provision was treated as fastening liability on the concerned "person" rather than on the firm itself. The majority accepted earlier precedent as governing the issue and applied it to uphold deletion of the firm's penalty, while the dissent questioned whether an earlier dismissal simpliciter could operate as binding law under Article 141. On the accepted view, the Revenue's challenge to removal of the penalty failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be imposed on a partnership firm.

Analysis: The decision turned on the scope of Rule 209A and the effect of earlier decisions, including the treatment of a firm as a "person" for penalty purposes. The majority view treated the dismissal of the civil appeal in the earlier matter as binding on the point decided and followed the holding that Rule 209A is intended to fasten penalty on the person concerned, not on the partnership firm. The dissenting view questioned whether the earlier dismissal simpliciter amounted to a declaration of law under Article 141, but the majority accepted that the earlier ruling governed the issue.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 209A was not sustainable against the partnership firm.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the deletion of penalty on the firm failed, and the order setting aside the firm's penalty was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: For penalty provisions framed in terms of a "person" under Rule 209A, the liability does not extend to the partnership firm on the facts and precedent accepted by the majority.

---