AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Excise Registration. The appellant surrendered its registration certificate on 18.09.2006 and obtained a new Central Excise Registration in the same premise in the name of M/s Manav Metal Industries w.e.f. 19.09.2006. The Central Excise Officers conducted investigation, wherein it was observed that the appellant during the period 2000-01 to 2006-07 involved in clandestine removal of their goods. To support their case, Revenue has made detailed investigation wherein the statement of Sh. Mahendra G Duggad was recorded. The records of the appellant were scrutinised and the investigation was also conducted with co-operative bank, it was contended that the appellant have issued parallel invoice for clandestine removal of goods. On verific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity of Rs. 45,15,471/-, considering these figures as sales figures, he submits that merely on the theoretical calculation from the books, clandestine removal cannot be concluded. He also submits that it is settled law that no demand can be confirmed against partnership firm which has been dissolved. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s Jullundhur Vegetables Syndicate reported in 1966 (17) STC 326 (SC). He submits that the aforesaid ruling was followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Khushi Ram Behari Lai & Co. reported in 1967 (19) STC 381 (SC). This Tribunal also followed the hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of M/s D. Matai Vs. CCE- Mumbai reported in 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmitted the evidence of having manufactured and clearance of the goods clandestinely. He submits that though in reply dated 15.04.2009 and 12.07.2009, it was admitted that goods were sold to the buyer but it was never admitted that these goods were cleared from the appellant factory after being manufactured. He submits that whatever clandestine removal alleged, the said goods were not manufactured by the appellant but it was trading activity of buying and selling of goods. He submits that the parallel invoice issued only to hide identity of manufacture but in fact the goods were not manufactured by the appellant. The goods purchased from the open market are deemed to have been duty paid, therefore, no further duty can be collected on the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d have invoked the provision of Section 11D of the Central Excise for recovery of amount collected as central excise duty whereas the same was confirmed under Section 11A, therefore, demand would not sustain. He submits that after surrendering registration, it was undisputed that the appellant had not carried out manufacture operation, therefore, question of clandestine removal does not arise. He submits that the adjudicating authority has not considered the amount of central excise duty of Rs. 22,610/- already paid by the appellant as per audit report para 2, hence the same was required to be deducted; that similarly, the audit report for the same period has considered the amount of central excise duty of Rs. 1,21,119/-, therefore, the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endra G Duggad is a partner of partnership firm, once the duty demand and penalty was proposed against partnership firm, no separate penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed on the partner. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgments: • Mohd Amin A S Lakha 2012 (275) ELT 465 (Tri.Ahmd.) • Prakash Metal works 2007 (216) ELT 660 (SC) • Rajnikant Ratilal Kadiwala 2009 (245) ELT 379 (Tri.Ahmd.) • N Chittaranjan 2017-TIOL-229-HC-MAD-CX • Amritlakshmi Machine Works 2016 (335) ELT 225 (Bom) 6. Sh. L. Patra Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 7. We have carefully considered the submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd, the appeal of Sh. Mahendra G Duggad, we find that in the impugned order a penalty was imposed on him under Rule 26, it is observed that Sh. Mahendra G Duggad is a partner of partnership firm. The partnership firm was already proposed the demand of duty and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, therefore, separate penalty on the partner cannot be imposed. This issue has been settled in various following judgments: • Mohd Amin A S Lakha 2012 (275) ELT 465 (Tri.Ahmd.) • Prakash Metal works 2007 (216) ELT 660 (SC) • Rajnikant Ratilal Kadiwala 2009 (245) ELT 379 (Tri.Ahmd.) • N Chittaranjan 2017-TIOL-229-HC-MAD-CX • Amritlakshmi Machine Works 2016 (335) ELT 225 (Bom) 9. ....