TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....13 kgs. of texturised yarn and cleared without payment of duty. On adjudication, central excise duty amounting to Rs.2,84,298/- was confirmed and imposed a penalty on M/s. Sai Texturisers under Rule 173Q and personal penalty of Rs.25,000/- on Shri Mohd. Amin S. Lakha under Rule 209A in addition to demand of interest and redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of confiscation of plant & machinery etc. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of Shri Mohd. Amin S. Lakha against which the Revenue filed this appeal to the Tribunal. 2. In the appeal filed, the Revenue contended that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in relying on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CC (E.P.) Vs. Jupiter Exports reporte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to believe are liable to confiscation shall be liable to penalty. 4. Most notably this shows that the penalty is on the individual and such person should be concerned with transporting, removing, selling and purchasing etc. It focuses so. From the statement of Shri Mohd. Amin S. Lakha recorded on 31.08.98 it is clear that the clearance of waste yarn was shown in panchnama as 3914.600 kgs; that clearance of waste yarn, as per Central Excise invoices, comes to 4832.000 kgs. Hence, there was a difference of waste yarn of 917 kgs. which is required to be taken into account; that the total clearance of texturised yarn as shown in panchnama is 1164527 kgs. whereas clearance made by them as per central excise records comes to 1164843 kgs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se where a personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Act is imposed on a person for omissions and commissions committed by him. The penalty imposed on the person under Rule 209A is distinguishable from other penalties imposed. For example under Rule 173Q even if for argument sake it is considered that Rule 209A is similar to Section 112. 6.1. Very often we hear this argument whether penalty on the partnership firm is distinguishable against the penalty on the person. I have gone through the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Surat Vs. Mohammed Farookh Mohammed Ghani reported in 2010 (259) ELT 179 (Guj.). It reads as follows: 8.?Thus, under the law of partnership, a firm has no legal ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ideration before this Court in Tax Appeal No. 1179 of 2010 with Tax Appeal No. 1180 of 2010 decided on 28-7-2010 [2010 (259) E.L.T. 179 (Guj.)] and this Court after discussing the relevant provisions of the Partnership Act and considering the role of the partner viz-a-viz the role of the Director in the case of a Company has taken the view that for the purpose of liability in respect of commission of offences under the Act, a partnership firm is equated with a company, whereas there is no such corresponding provision in relation to imposition of penalties under the Act. The Court, thereafter, took the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that no separate penalty was warranted on the partners in addition to the penalty on the part....