2009 (3) TMI 816

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....02 on the ground that these merchant-exporters abetted certain offence found to have been committed by one M/s. Evergreen Fashions. The said M/s. Evergreen Fashions issued invoices and ARE1's/ARE2's under Rules 11 and 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 without there being any removal of goods from their factory, so as to facilitate claiming and collection of rebate under Rule 18 fraudulently. These documents were countersigned by the above merchant-exporters, who, in the respective statements, stated inter alia that they had done as above at the instance of one Mr. Mukesh Khatri, a textile broker in Surat, who brokered transactions between them and M/s. Evergreen Fashions. In their statements, they further stated that Mr. Mukesh Khatri ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal so far. The period of limitation prescribed under the Act expired long ago. If that be the case, M/s. Evergreen Fashions will be presumed to have conceded their offence. In other words, the finding against the present appellants is one of abetment of an admitted offence. In this scenario, I am of the view that the appellants should pre-deposit a reasonable amount for purposes of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The learned counsel has argued inter alia that there can be no personal penalty on partnership firm like M/s. Vikram International. According to him, any penalty under Rules 26 ibid, if otherwise impossible, should be on the partners of such firm. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied on the Tribunal's decision....