2019 (7) TMI 630

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... AJAY SHARMA: These Appeals have been filed from the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, Goa in Order-In-Appeal No. CEX/GOA/VSK/13 to 15 dated 15.04.2010. 2. The facts in brief are as follows. The Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, corrugates boxes of different sizes, plates, partition, corrugated roll and waste & scrap. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,29,807/-, imposed penalty of Rs. 5,30,567/- under Section 11AC r/w Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on M/s Classic Packaging Industry, imposed penalty of Rs. 5,30,567/-on Mr. Jasbir Singh Siwach & Ms. Kiran S Siwach, partners of M/s. Classic Packaging Industries under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order-inoriginal M/s. Classic P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n-original. He further submitted that in view of the above, there is no justification for imposing the personal penalty on the partners of the company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. According to him, once the penalty is imposed on the company there is no justification for imposing the personal penalty on the partners of the company also. He submitted that although he produced various d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of the firm because partner is not separate legal entity and cannot be equated with the employee of the firm. The Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the matter of Pravin N Shah vs. CESTAT, 2014 (305)ELT 480(Guj.) has held that separate penalty not imposable upon partner of firm because partner is not a separate legal entity and cannot be equated with employee of the firm. In that case, the issue befo....