Partner's Penalty Reduced in Central Excise Case

The Judicial Member upheld the impugned order, reducing the penalty on the partner while maintaining the other demands on the firm, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete. The judgment was pronounced on 20/06/2019, dismissing the appeal against the rejection of the appellant's appeal and confirmation of the Order-in-Original by the Commissioner (A). The penalties imposed on the firm and the partner were upheld for evasion of Central Excise duty and non-filing of statutory returns, with the partner's penalty reduced due to the firm's existing penalty.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner (A) and confirmation of Order-in-Original
- Allegations of evasion of Central Excise duty and non-filing of statutory returns
- Imposition of penalties on the firm and the partner
- Applicability of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals challenging the rejection of the appellant's appeal and confirmation of the Order-in-Original by the Commissioner (A). The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete, was accused of evading Central Excise duty and not filing statutory returns. The appellant had paid a portion of the duty after an investigation was initiated. The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties on both the firm and the partner. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal of the partnership firm and held that the partner did not file an appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit towards the penalty imposed on him.

The appellant argued that financial difficulties prevented them from paying the duty as proposed in the show-cause notice. They contended that the penalties imposed on the firm and the partner were unwarranted. The appellant admitted the lapse of not filing returns on time but disputed the imposition of penalties. The appellant also questioned the equal penalty imposed on the partner, which was not mentioned in the show-cause notice.

On the other hand, the respondent defended the impugned order, stating that the duty collected from buyers was not paid to the Government, indicating an intention to evade payment. The respondent argued that penalties were rightly imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. The respondent invoked Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules against the partner for his involvement in the duty evasion.

After hearing both parties and examining the evidence, the Judicial Member found that the appellant had collected duty from customers but failed to deposit it with the Government, constituting suppression of facts to evade duty. The appellant's failure to file returns also led to the imposition of penalties. The Judicial Member reduced the penalty imposed on the partner, considering the already imposed penalty on the firm. The decision upheld the other demands on the firm, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Judicial Member upheld the impugned order, reducing the penalty on the partner while maintaining the other demands on the firm. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 20/06/2019.

---