In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.E.A. No. 72 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 18, 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissionerate, Chandigarh …Appellant Versus Ashok Singla …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel, (Indirect Taxes), for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is directed against order dated 30.9.2008 (A-3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in all respects but deleting personal penalty of Shri Ashok Singla, partner of the dealer-firm. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed, which has been deleted on the appeal filed by the dealer firm-respondent. It is appropriate to mention that against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) proposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- no appeal was preferred C.E.A No. 72 of 2009 by the revenue. It was on the appeal filed by the dealer-respondent that the Tribunal has deleted the personal penalty. The revenue has claimed that the following substantive question of law would arise for determination of this Court:- “Whether the CESTAT’s Final Order is correct in holding that penalty on partner of the firm is not imposable under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as penalty has been imposed on the firm under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944?” Having heard learned counsel for the revenue, we are of the considered view that the amount involved is very meagre and it would not be warranted to go into that question. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal by leaving the aforesaid question of law open. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) August 18, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2