2017 (1) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Respondent : Shri L. Patra, Authorised Representative ORDER Per Dr. D. M. Misra This is an appeal filed against OIA No. 126/2013/AHD-II/CE/AK/COMMR-A/AHD dated 19/06/2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise-Ahmedabad-II. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Woven Sacks/Bags falling under Chapter ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... afresh, reduced the demand to Rs. 11,79,685/-, and also penalty under Sec.11AC of CEA,1944 on the firm, accordingly but, the personal penalty on the partner was not changed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred Appeals before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who inturn, rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that while....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce bad in law in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Surat-I vs. Santosh Textile Mills  2013 (336) E.L.T. 54 (Guj.). 4. Per contra, the Ld. AR for Revenue vehemently argued that after considering the evidences in the denovo proceeding, the adjudicating authority had scaled down the demand from Rs. 12,27,946/- and the evidences now filed by the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the appellant that they would be eligible to discharge 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein, in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Santosh Textile Mills (supra). Further, I find force in their contention that penalty cannot be imposed both on partnership firm as well as on th....