2017 (5) TMI 881

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants Shri K. Poddar, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran These two appeals are against common impugned order dated 28/07/2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi - I. Both the appellants are partners of M/s Allied Electricals engaged in manufacture of electrical fittings liable to Central Excise duty. In January 2008, the officers of Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner (Appeals) upheld the original order. The manufacturing firm filed appeal against the impugned order which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide final order No.50849 of 2016 dated 28/01/2016. The appeal was dismissed upholding the impugned order. 2. In the present appeal both the appellants are against imposition of penalties on them, in their capacity as partners of the manufacturing fir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Tribunal in Yunusbhai Shamsuddin Devdiwala vs. CCE & ST, Ahmedabad - I reported in 2016 (334) E.L.T. 120 (Tri. - Ahmd.) and CCE, Daman vs. Mohd. Amin A.S. Lakha reported in 2012 (275) E.L.T. 465 (Tri. - Ahmd.). 4. I have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The only point for decision is the sustainability of penalties imposed on partners of manufacturing firm, under Rule 26....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct or these rules; shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or [two thousand rupees], whichever is greater. 5. It is clear on plain reading of the above-mentioned provisions and the facts of the case penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 26 operate in different fields. It is not correct to say that the penalties now imposed on the partners/ appellant will amount to doub....