Sunil Kumar Khullar, Partner vs C.C.E., Delhi-I
- CitationAppeal No. E/55683/2014-EX(SM), E/55684/2014-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The penalty imposed on the partners under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot survive where the penalty imposed on the firm itself, arising from the same proceedings, has been set aside by the Tribunal, since no independent ground is shown on which the partners' liability could rest.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Appeal No. E/55683/2014-EX(SM), E/55684/2014-EX(SM)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 174-175/CE/DLH/2014 dated 12/08/2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-I)
Date of Hearing: 07/09/2015
Date of Pronouncement:18/09/2015
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Pawan Kumar Khullar, Partner
Sunil Kumar Khullar, Partner Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E., Delhi-I Respondent
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Shri Ravinder Singh, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri M.R. Sharma (AR)
Coram: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Final Order No.52875-52876/2015
Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.
1. The appellants who are partners of M/s J. D. Engineering have filed the above appeals challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs.2000/- on each appellant under Rule 26 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellants brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the demand of duty of Rs.55,642/ and equal amount penalty imposed on M/s J.D. Engineering was dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals). But the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order and imposed penalty of Rs.5000/- upon M/s J.D. Engineering under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 holding that there is procedural lapse of not renewing the Letter of Undertaking. This Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/52038/2015SM(BR) dated 29.6.2015 dropped the above penalty also allowing the appeal filed by M/s J.D. Engineering. The present appeal is filed by partners of M/s J.D. Engineering. As the penalty imposed upon the firm, is set aside, I do not find any ground to take a different view in these appeals filed by the partners.
3. In view there of, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.
(Pronounced on )
(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)
Member (Judicial)
K. Gupta
??
??
??
??
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free