https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186057 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. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Sep 2016 16:36:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186057 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186057