VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) No. 1149 OF 2008 Viranbhai Purushottam Patel Petitioner Vs. Union of India Respondent Mr. Rafiq Dada, Sr. counsel with Mr. A. S. Rao i/b M.S. Kumthekar, for the petitioner. Mr. K. J. Rana, Sr. counsel with Mr. Y. R. Mishra for the Respondent. CORAM : Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 6, 2008. PC :- . Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing. Learned senior counsel Mr. Rana waives service for the respondent. 3. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 25th March, 2008 passed - 2 - by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange whereby the tribunal had directed the appellant to made the pre-deposit of 50% of the penalty, amounting to Rs. 1.2 Crores. 4. The learned senior counsel Mr. Dada for the petitioner has pointed out that, in fact, the alleged incident took place in the year 1991, and the show cause notice has been issued on 31st May 2002 i.e. on the last date on which the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act expired. The said show-cause notice, though served in the year 2002, was served in June-July 2003. Over and above Mr. Dada, the learned senior counsel has pointed out that, in fact in the partnership firm all the partners, who were partners at the relevant time in the year 1991 have ceased to be the partners. right from the date of the adjudication order, they were not partners at the relevant time, even when the show cause notice was issued. Over and above Mr. Dada has also pointed out that a sum of Rs.5 lacs was seized from the petitioner firm, which is still lying with the respondent for the last almost 17 years, which amount would have now easily become upto Rs.35 lacs. Mr. Rana, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent also does not dispute the aforesaid facts. - 3 - 5. Mr. Dada, learned senior counsel pointed out and strongly relied on judgment of our Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) Vs. Jupiter Jupiter Jupiter Exports, [ 2007(213) E.L.T.641 (Bom.) ] Exports, [ 2007(213) E.L.T.641 (Bom.) ] Exports, [ 2007(213) E.L.T.641 (Bom.) ] wherein we have categorically held that when the partnership firm has been penalised, separate penalty cannot be imposed on a partner under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25th March, 2008 6. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The tribunal shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible Sd/- [ Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ] Sd/- [ A. P.BHANGALE, J.]