TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the licence in accordance with the provisions of Central Excise Law. From the records of the case, it is seen that the appellants filed a suit before the Munsif Court at Ranebennur on 16-4-1990 in O.S. No. 272/90 pleading that he had been illegally removed from the partnership firm of M/s. A.A. Airani & Sons and claimed declaration in respect of the status of partner and sought permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 9-4-97 by default. The appellants on 24-10-2003 made a representation addressed to the Commissioner of Central Excise, for including his name in the Central Excise Registration Certificate. The appellant also filed a W.P. No. 54118/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka contending that a week prior to filing of the writ petition, he came to know of illegal removal of his name from the partnership firm M/s. A.A. Airani & Sons and on that score sought issue of directions to the Central Excise authorities to consider his representation dated 24-10-2003. The writ petition was dismissed on 12-1-2004 by Hon'ble Single Judge Bench and the appeal filed before the Divisional Bench also came to be dismissed. The appellants again filed W.P. No. 4768/2005 im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt name being deleted by the office of the Excise, licensing authority record, the round off shown in the name of appellant i.e., date of deletion or order of the authority has not been made, the said copy of deletion of the appellant is produced and marked as Annexure-B. The name of the Fiyaz Mohammed Khan is shown as deleted. III. The respondent partner have completely gone to the extent vehimical and fanficalful (sic) by deleting the name of appellant contrary to the partnership condition mentioned in the deed. The clauses 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24 are also contravening by the decision of respondent partners damaging the appellant's claim. The appellant sought to insertion of his name and proper enquiry has to be made such an enquiry not made by the respondent authority. IV. The application filed by the appellant before the Commissioner of central excise to correction of the error and insertion of the deleted name of the partner i.e., Sri. Faize Mohammed Khan in the licence issued to M/s. A.A. Airani and sons. The said application dated 24-10-2003 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure -C. V. The appellant submits that the respondents firms and its partners have c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant not given affidavit or he has not given consent to go out of partner. Even the respondent fabricated record as his declaration by way of affidavit dated l5-11-1992 these affidavit is illegal improper fabricated by respondents for their benefit. XI. The other records has also prepared by respondent as if the appellant was retired from firm on 31-3-1989 neither he has been retired nor has given consent it is all master plan of the M/s. Airani and sons partners, without the appellant consent which has been made hence the order of lower appellate authority dated 28-7-2005 passed by the Asst Commissioner central excise is not no proper valid reason and law and same copy is produced as Annexure-C. Subsequently another order of the higher authorities i.e. Impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise dated A.No. 134/2005 (B-II) dated 28-11-2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant same is produced as Impugned order as Annexure-D. XII. Later correction of order dated 28-11-2005 is communicated to the appellant on 13-1-2006 which was the mistaken of number in its order and the same is produced and marked as Annexure-E. Hence the appellant arrived by the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t correct document. The same contentions were taken by the appellant before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after verifying the entire records came to the following conclusions. "I have gone through the records of the case and considered the submissions made by the appellants in the appeal. I find that in the year 1990, the partner of the firm had made an application for amendment to the licence by producing a re-constituted partnership deed. Based on the application the Proper Officer had carried out the amendment by deleting the name of the appellant from the licence. When an authorised person makes an application the department is not required to go into the genuineness of the document. In the instant case the partner of the firm made an application and the Proper Officer under bona fide belief took action as requested by the partner. I find no infirmity in the action of the department. If the re-constituted partnership deed was fabricated and was made illegally behind the back of the appellants, the appellant on coming to know of such illegality should have instituted criminal proceedings against such fraudulent and illegal action. I fi....