https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49914 Duty demand and penalty on the firm were upheld because excisable goods were cleared after collecting duty from customers without remitting the amount to the Central Government, and the penalty under Rule 173Q was treated as justified and even on the lighter side given the duty involved. The separate penalty on the partner under Rule 209A was set aside because the firm had already been penalised for the same excise violation, and no separate basis for fastening additional liability on the partner was shown. en-us Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:57:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49914 Duty demand and penalty on the firm were upheld because excisable goods were cleared after collecting duty from customers without remitting the amount to the Central Government, and the penalty under Rule 173Q was treated as justified and even on the lighter side given the duty involved. The separate penalty on the partner under Rule 209A was set aside because the firm had already been penalised for the same excise violation, and no separate basis for fastening additional liability on the partner was shown. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49914