TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, had filed this appeal and it was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty on the husband of the dormant partner, while sustaining the penalty on the Partnership Firm?" 2. A perusal of the Order-in-original dated 22.11.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dindigul II Division, Dindigul, would disclose that based on the intelligence gathered by the Officers of HPU, Madurai, that M/s.Paragon Paper Private Limited, 543/2, Perumal Goundanpatti, B.Ammapatty, Theni District (In short "PPPL") are selling the Duplex Boards to the safety ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alf as the partner and associating with Shri.N.Chittaranjan, the appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.1559 of 2011, in the business of SJPM and since he is happened to be the husband of Smt.Amsa, apart from imposition of penalty on SJPM, no penalty can be imposed on him. The Original Authority had gone through the materials. The appellant herein was also granted with an opportunity of personal hearing and the Original Authority, after going through the entire materials, has arrived at a finding as to the imposition of penalty on the appellant, by taking into consideration of the fact that his statement would reveal that he had paid excess amount to PPPL than what was covered by the bill and had knowledge that PPPL have suppressed the value of paper an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. (v) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) on M/s.Shri Jaya Muruga Paper Mart, Sivakasi under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. (vi) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) on Shri N.Chittaranjan, Partner of Shri Jaya Muruga Paper Mart, Sivakasi under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. (vii) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) on Shri K.Seenivasan, (H/O Smt.Amsa, Partner of Shri Jaya Muruga Paper Mart, Sivakasi), under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. (viii) The other penal proceedings initiated in the notice are hereby dropped." 3. The appellant herein and three others, aggrieved by the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f M/s.Shri Jaya Muruga Paper Mart, Sivakasi under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. (g) The penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on Shri K.Seenivasan (H/o.Smt.Amsa, Partner of M/s.Shri Jaya Muruga Paper Mart, Sivakasi) under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. (h) Stay petitions also stand disposed accordingly." 4. The appellant herein, aggrieved by the same, filed appeal before the CESTAT and in the grounds of appeal, has stated that he is the husband of the one of the partners of SJPM, viz., Smt.Amsa and for all practical purposes, he was doing the functions as a partner in the Firm and since the Firm has been imposed with penalty for abetting the commission of offen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant herein to canvass this appeal on merits and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 8. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the CESTAT would indicate that quantum of penalty alone was put in issue and, therefore, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the said submission and has reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000/- on each of the appellants. The core issue is as to the imposition of penalty on the husband of the agreement partner, viz., the appellant herein. The said issue is no longer res integra, in the light of the Full Bench judgment rendered by Bombay High Court reported in 2016 (335) E.L.T. 225 (Bom.) (FB) [Amritlakshmi Machine Works vs. Commr. of Cus. (Import), Mumbai. It is relevant to extract the following: "We note that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o an offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Act. Section 112(a) of the Act to the extent it covers a person who abets the doing or omitting the doing of any act as plainly read would also be an offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Act also. This is so as the requirement of knowledge is found only in case of abetment and not in other cases listed in Section 112(a) of the Act. The word abetment is not defined in the Act, therefore the meaning assigned to it in Section 3(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which is as given under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. An abetment would include by definition intentional aiding when covered by Explanation 2 read with third category listed in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. (See Supreme Co....