2010 (11) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Being aggrieved with that part of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, vide which he has set aside the penalty on the partnership firm, while upholding the penalties on the partners, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing the learned SDR, I note that the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty against the respondent M/s. Speci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner (Appeals)'s order holding that separate penalties should not be imposed on the partnership firm as also on the partners, is correct in the light of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Jupiter Exports as reported in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.), he should have set aside the penalties on the partners and not on the partnership firm. 4. I agree with the above contention of the l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irm confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. 5. However, while imposing the penalty on the partnership firm, the original adjudicating authority has not extended the option to the said appellant to pay 25% of the penalty amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, in which case, penalty shall stand reduced to 25%. The Tribunal in the case of Swati Chem....