2018 (1) TMI 302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t(s) ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders seeking relaxation for the penalties imposed on them by way of impugned orders. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a case was booked against the appellant for taking inadmissible Cenvat credit on certain inputs which were later paid by the appellant along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n in the case of Pravin N. Shah Vs. CESTAT - 2014 (305) ELT 480 (Guj.). 3. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. I find that admittedly, no option has been given to the appellants to pay 25% of duty as penalty within 30 days of the adjudication order. In that circumstance, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Gohil Packaging Pvt. Limited....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le to pay 100% of duty as penalty, in terms of proviso to Section 11AC of the Act. 4. Further, I find that a penalty on Shri Bhavesh P. Bansali has been imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, being a partner of the main appellant. As in a partnership firm, if the penalty has been imposed on the main appellant, then no penalty can be imposed on the partner of the firm, in terms o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2010 (258) E.L.T. 204 (Guj.) that where no specific Rule is attributed to the partner in the firm, then once firm has already been penalised, 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 assig....