2011 (10) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. JUDGMENT This order will dispose of CEA Nos. 84 and 85 of 2011 as both the appeals arise out of same facts but in the matter of two partners. 2. The appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") against order dated 5-1-2011 [2011 (266) E.L.T. 137 (Tri.-Del.)] passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 1710782 + Ed Cess Rs. 34216/- + Cess Rs. 17108/-) and the deficiency in the payment of Central Excise duty amounting to 218336/- (211976 + 4240 + 2120) on 57.155 M.T. M.S. Ingots and Rs. 36520/- (35456 + 709 + 355) on 9.560 M.T. M.S. Bar/Patras be not recovered from them under Section 11(A)(1) of the Act. It was also stated that why the penalty should not be imposed on the firm under Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t had been issued and proceedings stand concluded against firm, therefore, penalty proceedings under Rule 26 of the Rules cannot be continued against partners. The said order was affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal as well vide order dated 5-1-2011. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the conclusion of proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Act does not absolve the ....