2015 (10) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... JJ. For The Assessee : Shri K.I. Vyas Advocate For The Revenue : Shri. J. Nair. Authorised Representative Per: P.K. Das All the appeals are arising out of the common order and therefore, these are taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of processed MMF (P) on job work basis out of the grey fabrics suppli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... this appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order in so far as the option was given to the assessee to pay reduced penalty. The assessee also filed appeal. The learned Advocate of the assessee submits that the appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as an objection against the appeal filed by the Revenue. The partner of the assessee also filed appeal before the Tribunal. 3. After he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts V/s Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Gujarat. 2015 (308) E.L.T. 178 (Tri. Ahmd.). 5. I find that the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Praveen N. Shah (Supra) held that once the firm is penalized, separate penalty not imposable upon partner of firm because the partner cannot be equated with employee of the firm. The relevant portion of the said deci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s already been penalized, separate penalty cannot be imposed upon the partner because a partner is not a separate legal entity and cannot be equated with employee of a firm. From the order of the Tribunal or other orders on record, we do not find that any specific role has been assigned as provided by Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. The Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Exci....