TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Singh This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dt. 28.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a partner in a first stage dealer firm M/s Isha Enterprises, who is alleged to have issued bogus invoices without supply of the goods to 15 manufacturers/traders in NCR. After investigation, a show cause notice w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Gulshan Bhatia, who had expired on 23.05.2014. He further pleaded that penalty on a partner could not be imposed when the firm is already penalized. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws: (i) Sai Metal Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 2010 (256) ELT 631 (Tri.-Bang.); (ii) Montex Dyeing & Printing Works vs. CCE, Surat - 2007 (215) ELT 46 (Tri.-Ahmd.); (iii) Kamdeep Marketin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parties in Delhi, Aligarh and Faridabad without any bills. Ld. A.R. also invited attention to page 6 of the statement dt. 15.02.2011, wherein Sh. Jagdish Bhatia has claimed that he was fully responsible for all kinds of decisions and endorsed the statement dt. 15.02.2011 of Sh. Gulshan Bhatia, the main partner. Ld. A.R. pointed out that it was the appellant who had admitted that the offence and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was indeed relied by Ld. Advocate, has settled the position that penalty can be imposed on the partner even when the firm has been penalized. Ld. Advocate fairly agrees with this proposition. On the issue of culpability of the appellant, I find that the appellant was fully and deeply involved in the fraud of issuing of bogus invoices by M/s Isha Enterprises. This is evident from the detailed state....