Valid notice to partnership firm, unaccounted clearances sustain duty demand, with cum-duty valuation and reduced penalty.

Service of a show cause notice on a partner who participates in the firm's affairs is treated as valid service on the firm. The note also states that duty demand is sustainable where goods are cleared from the manufacturing premises without proper accounting and the removals are not reflected in statutory records. It further explains that, when duty is not separately collected, the assessable value should be taken as cum-duty price and the excise duty element deducted. On that basis, penalty may be reduced if found excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of the show cause notice on a partner of the firm was valid service on the firm. (ii) Whether duty demand on goods cleared without proper accounting from the manufacturing premises was sustainable. (iii) Whether the assessable value had to be taken as cum-duty price and penalty required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether service of the show cause notice on a partner of the firm was valid service on the firm.

Analysis: Section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 treats notice to a partner who habitually acts in the business of the firm in matters relating to the affairs of the firm as notice to the firm. The partner who received the notice sought copies of the relied upon documents and engaged with the revenue authorities, showing participation in the affairs of the firm. On these facts, the notice served on the partner could not be treated as invalid service on the firm.

Conclusion: The challenge to service of notice failed and the service was held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether duty demand on goods cleared without proper accounting from the manufacturing premises was sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were found to be manufactured at an unregistered premises and the quantity supplied to the trading concern was not reflected in the statutory records. The absence of proper accounting and the evidence of clearances supported the inference that the goods had been removed without payment of duty.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessable value had to be taken as cum-duty price and penalty required reduction.

Analysis: Where duty is not separately collected, the sale price has to be treated as inclusive of duty and the demand recomputed after deducting the excise duty element. In the circumstances, the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also considered excessive and warranted reduction.

Conclusion: Cum-duty benefit was allowed and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000.

Final Conclusion: The order substantially upheld the duty demand while granting cum-duty relief and reducing the penalty, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Notice served on a partner who participates in the affairs of the firm constitutes valid notice to the firm, and where clearances are proved to be unaccounted, duty is recoverable on the basis of the actual sale price after allowing cum-duty deduction.

---