https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246338 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. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:03:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246338 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246338