TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 939
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant No.1') and Shri Vikas Garg ('Appellant No.2'). 1.2 Since a common impugned order is under challenge, both appeals are being taken up together for disposal. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being drawn from Appeal No. C/60603/2019 filed by the Appellant No.1. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant No.1 is a manufacturer-exporter who exported 'Gate/Door Leaves and Gate/Door Wheels' vide ARE-1 No. 7 dated 18.05.2015 on payment of duty amounting to Rs.3,80,052/- on an assessable value of Rs.30,40,417/-, under a rebate claim as provided under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.1 Shipping Bill No. 9625626 dated 18.05.2015 was filed at ICD, Ludhiana, and after due examination, the Customs authorities permitted export of the goods on 20.05.2015. The ARE-1 was duly endorsed by the Customs authorities certifying the export of the said goods. 2.2 Subsequently, acting on an intelligence, the export goods of the Appellant were put on hold at Pipavav Port. Thereafter, the Appellant applied for the provisional release of the goods, which was allowed by the competent authority vide order dated 21.08.2015. 2.3 On completion of the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o parallel invoices or proforma invoice relating to goods exported was found by Revenue, but still the Revenue chose to seize the impugned export consignment by relying upon "other" parallel invoices or pro-forma invoices (relating to different consignments) allegedly resumed from the premises of Appellant. He further submitted that various relied upon parallel invoices or pro-forma invoices as mentioned in Table-4 of Show Cause Notice, the learned Authorities ought to have considered that these are of date subsequent to Shipping Bill dated 18.05.2015, viz. S. No. 2, 7, 22, 23, 24 & 26 of Table-4 of Show Cause Notice; some of these relied upon documents relates to another firm i.e., Vikas Industries, viz. S.No. 16, 22 & 23 of the Table-4 of the Show Cause Notice. He also submitted that there is no parallel invoice or proforma invoice relied upon or available in respect of S. No. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27 & 28 of Table-4 of Show Cause Notice; these relied upon parallel invoices or pro-forma invoices as mentioned in Table-4 of Show Cause Notice are of date much earlier to Shipping Bill dated 18.05.2015 viz. S. No. 3, 4, 15 & 16 of Table-4 of Show Cause Notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... separate penalty imposed upon Appellant No.2 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. To support this submission, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. CCE - 2013 (287) E.L.T. 54 (P&H). 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the material available on record. We note that the following two issues fall for our consideration in the present appeals: (i) Whether the value of the exported goods declared by the Appellant No.1 was rightly rejected by the authorities below on the ground of overvaluation? (ii) Whether a separate personal penalty can be legally sustained against Appellant No.2 (the partner) when a penalty has already been imposed upon the partnership firm for the same offense? 7. We find that the entire case of the Revenue is anchored upon certain parallel invoices/pro-forma invoices recovered during the search conducted by the Department at the premises of the Appellant. However, a bare perusal of Table-4 of the Show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of penalties one on the proprietorship firm and second on the proprietor would amount to imposition of penalty twice, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law." 10. Learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in the case of Tarak Nath Sen and Others v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1975 Calcutta 337, has observed as under:- 17. Thus, these decisions make it clear that although a firm in mercantile usage has a personality of its own, strictly in the eye of law, it is not a legal entity like a natural person. Therefore, the rights and obligations of a firm are really rights and obligations of the individual partners of the firm. In the instant case, according to the findings made by the Additional Collector of Customs in his adjudication order the petitioners 2 to 4 carrying on business as a partnership firm had contravened provisions of the Customs Act and the Gold Control Rules and were liable for penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act and under Rule 126-L(16) of the Defence of India (Gold Control) Rules Therefore, no exception can be taken to imposition of penalties individually upon them. But since the firm is not a legal entity and Section 140 ....