2014 (8) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... M/s. D.K. Polyn Industries (100% EOU) on the ground that no separate penalty can be imposed on the partner when a penalty has already been imposed upon the partnership firm. Revenue has filed this appeal on the ground that CESTAT in many cases has held that a separate penalty upon the partner can be imposed in addition to penalty imposed upon the partnership concern if clear-cut role is played by the partner in the clandestine activities. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. Shri G.P. Thomas (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the bench go through the statements of Shri Anand Mahendra Kapadia, partner and emphasized that respondent was actively involved in the clandestine activities and penalty is required to be impose....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as held in Para 17 as follows:-                   17. While concluding, it would be necessary to advert to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Jupiter Exports - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.). In that case, a notice to show cause was issued by the Commissioner of Customs on an allegation of the misuse of the DEEC Scheme by adopting fraudulent means to obtain a higher entitlement in respect of duty free import. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the duty demanded and imposed penalties on the main partners, who had actively participated in the business of the firm. In appeal, the Tribunal held that the firm was liabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... levy on the partners and hence, there would be no question of penalizing the partners separately. The Gujarat High Court held that the explanation in Section 140 was for the purposes of liability in respect of commission of offences under the Act whereas there was no such corresponding provision in relation to the imposition of a penalty under the Act. The Gujarat High Court has also not considered the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Standard Chartered Bank case. As a matter of fact, in a judgment of the Supreme Court in Prakash Metal Works v. Collector of Central Excise, 2007 (216) E.L.T. 660 (S.C.) Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia (as the Learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for the Supreme Court upheld an order of t....