TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that M/s. Rodex International having importer-Exporter code Number 3710001358 was a partnership concern engaged in trading activities of various types of items for which Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, had issued Letter of approval No KASEZ.IA/1880/2002-03/1907, dated 08.05.2002. Intelligence was gathered by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad (DRI) that certain goods were to be smuggled in a container bearing number GLDU-0279344 surreptitiously by concealing them in the goods imported in the name of Rodex. Hence, the officers of DRI kept surveillance and found that Rodex had filed bill of Ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1662 cannot be imposed once the penalty on the firm has been imposed. He further submits that the appellant is a partner in M/s. Rodex International which had lent his IEC Number to one Lilaram who are imported Tvs and Refrigerators. He further submits that Lilaram had concealed Memory Cards and Refrigerators and it is a limited fact that the imported goods belongs to Lilaram . He further submits that the impugned order dated 25.07.2012 imposing penalty both on firm and on its partner under Section 112(a) and 114AA. He also submits that it is a settled law that penalty on both partnership and firm and partner is not imposable under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may refer to the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. JAI PRAKASH MOTWANI wherein the Hon'ble High Court in para 5 and 6 as held as under:- "5. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal as a whole, does not reveal that any specific role is attributed to the Respondent who is one of the partners in the firm, and there is no adjudication to this effect in the said order. The Tribunal has relied upon the Division Bench decision in the case of Jaybee Industries v. CCE, Gurgaon as reported in : 2004 (168) E.L.T. 316 (Tri.-Del.) to come to the conclusion that where a penalty is imposed on a partnership firm, no separate penalty can be imposed on any of its partners. It has been no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f penalizing the partners separately for the same contravention, unless the intention of the legislature to treat the firm and partners as distinct entities is borne out from the statute itself, as in the case of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Whenever the legislature intends to treat the partners and the firm as separate entities it expressly provides for the same. This is apparent when one sees Section 140 of the Act which makes provision for Offences by companies The Explanation below Section 140 which is relevant for the present purpose reads thus Explanation - For the purposes of this section, - 'company means a body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals, and director, in relation to a firm, mea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were made by Lilaram who was the mastermind for import of the impugned goods. Further, I find that the appellant has not withdrawn his admission made before the Customs authorities and Learned DR submits that the appellant has confessed his guilt and once he has admitted the fact the same need not be proved. 6.4 Further, I find that no doubt the penalty on Lilaram has already been set aside but admission made by the present appellant wherein he has stated that he would get 1 lakh rupees for this Memory Card concealed in the refrigerator, for which he had filed the self Bill of Entry. After perusal of the provisions of Section 114A of the Customs Act, I find that there is a sufficient evidence against the appellant for imposition of penal....