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

....entative for the Respondent ORDER 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, partiti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for recovery of balance amount of Rs. 2,29,807/-, 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 receip....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s from the date of receipt of the order-in-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 subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e penalty is not imposable upon the partner 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 ....