AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad 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 partner and partnership Firm simultaneously under Central Excise Act, 1944?" 2. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court would reveal 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 matches manufacturers situated in and around Sivakasi, Sattur and Kovilpatti, through M/s. Shri Jaya Muruga Paper Mart, Sivakasi, (In short "SJPM"), in which, the appellant is one of the partners, at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counted, should not be demanded under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an amount of Rs. 3,74,372/- already paid by them should not be appropriated towards the proposed demand, charging of interest under Section 11AB of the Act and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Show cause notice was also issued to Thiru. R. Rajkumar, Director of PPPL, SJPM, the appellant herein, as well as K. Seenivasan, husband of one of the partners and after elucidating their response and giving opportunity of personal hearing, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dindigul II Division, Dindigul, had passed the order-in-original dated 22.11.2010, giving a finding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ercise the option for payment of reduced penalty subject to the fulfillment of the condition stipulated therein. (iii) M/s. Paragon Paper Private Limited is also liable to pay interest as applicable under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act 1944. I adjust an amount of Rs. 1,40,617/- (Rupees One Lakhs Forty Thousands Six Hundred and Seventeen only) already paid by them on 30.06.2010 towards the interest liability. (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) on Shri. R. Rajkumar, Director of M/s. Paragon Paper Private Limited under 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 11AB ibid and also adjustment of amount of Rs. 1,40,617/- already paid towards the interest is upheld. (d) The penalty Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on Shri R. Rajkumar, Director of M/s. Paragon Paper Limited under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. (e) The penalty Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on M/s. Shri Jaya Muruga Paper Mart, Sivakasi under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. (f) The penalty Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on Shri N. Chittaranjan, Partner of 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 Pape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansaction and that one of the Directors of M/s. PPPL has also been imposed with penalty and further that the partnership Firm itself has been imposed with penalty, no penalty can be imposed on the partners separately and prays for interference. 6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to 2011(272) E.L.T. 513 (Bom.) (DB) [Textoplast Industries vs. Additional Commissioner of Customs] and 2016 (335) E.L.T. 225 (Bom.) (FB) [Amritlakshmi Machine Works vs. Commr. of Cus. (Import), Mumbai and would submit that as per the ratio laid down in the above cited decisions, simultaneous penalty can be imposed both on the partners and partnership Firm under Section 112 (a) of the Cus....