Tribunal allows appeal against partner's penalty for lack of evidence

The Tribunal held that separate penalties on a partnership firm and its partner can be imposed if the nature of contravention is different. While the firm was penalized for availing Cenvat credit fraudulently, the partner could only be penalized under Rule 26 if there was evidence of his involvement in activities related to excisable goods liable for confiscation. As there was no evidence linking the partner to such activities, the penalty on the partner was deemed unjustified, and the appeal challenging the imposition of penalty on the partner was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty on a partner of a partnership firm for availing Cenvat credit on the basis of bogus invoices.
- Whether separate penalties on a partnership firm and its partners can be imposed for different contraventions.

Analysis:
- The appellant partnership firm was alleged to have availed Cenvat credit based on bogus invoices, leading to a demand of Rs. 5,35,836 along with penalties imposed by the Jurisdictional Joint Commissioner. The penalty was also imposed on the partner of the firm under Rule 26 and 27. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty on the partner, leading to the present appeal challenging the imposition of penalty on the partner only.
- The appellant's counsel argued that separate penalties on the firm and the partner for the same contravention are not justified, citing judgments from various High Courts and a Tribunal. The counsel contended that there was no evidence to justify the penalty on the partner under Rules 26 and 27 of the Central Excise Rules.
- The respondent defended the penalty imposition, stating that penalties on the firm and the partner can be separate if the contraventions are different. Referring to a High Court judgment, the respondent emphasized that the partner was aware of the fraudulent Cenvat credit availed by the firm based on bogus invoices, justifying the penalty under Rules 26 and 27.
- The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and examined the records. It opined that separate penalties on the partnership firm and the partner can be imposed if the nature of contravention is different. While the firm was penalized for availing Cenvat credit fraudulently, the partner could be penalized under Rule 26 if there was evidence of his involvement in activities related to excisable goods liable for confiscation.
- Rule 26 allows for penalties on individuals involved in dealing with excisable goods they know are liable for confiscation. The Tribunal found that the partner had no evidence against him other than the Cenvat credit issue. As there was no indication of his involvement in activities related to excisable goods, the penalty on the partner was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order upholding the penalty on the partner was set aside. The appeal was allowed.

---