2012 (5) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....44 read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and directing the appellant - proprietor of M/s Asim Enterprises and partner of M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar to pay penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Undisputedly, brief facts of the present case inter alia are that appellant is proprietor of M/s Asim Enterprises, and partner of M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar, registered dealers; the Central Excise Officers searched the business premises of M/s Asian Alloys Ltd. on 12.1.2001 and conducted thorough investigation; M/s Asian Alloys Ltd. availed credit on the basis of invoices issued by the registered dealers and washer manufacturing units during the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.7.2001; Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,79,64,978/- an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll as on M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar, of which appellant is the partner, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant separately, it would amount to imposition of double penalties, which is not permissible under the law. On the other hand, Ms. Ranjana Shahi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, has vehemently argued that since appellant has actively participated in the settling of accounts of other registered dealers, who had supplied invoices to M/s Asian Alloys Ltd., the proprietorship firm of the appellant without any physical movement of the goods, therefore, penalty was rightly imposed on the proprietor of M/s Asim Enterprises and partner of M/s Makhan Lal Vinod Kumar and no interference is called therein. Having ....