2018 (10) TMI 320 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMI – Penalty exceeding ₹ 50 lakhs – section 35D(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Held that:- The jurisdiction of a single member to decide any appeal before the Tribunal would be limited to the cases where the amount of fine and penalty involved does not exceed ₹ 50 lakhs – In the present case therefore the single member had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Impugned order is therefore set aside only on this ground.
–
Appeal is revived before the Tribunal and shall be heard by the Division Bench of the Tribunal. – R/TAX APPEAL NO. 320 of 2018 Dated:- 4-10-2018 – MR AKIL KURESHI AND MR B.N. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner(s) : MR ANKIT SHAH (6371) For The Respondent(s) : NOTICE SE
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
a ground was taken that the assessee had put on record source of ascertainment of wrong adjustment of ₹ 10,46,184/only as against charge of wrong adjustment to the tune of ₹ 1,43,72,143/. In this context, the contention of the Revenue was that the Commissioner erred in not imposing penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944, and the Tribunal be pleased to hold that the penalty evaded to tax is required to be imposed on the assessee. The counsel for the appellant is thus correct in pointing out that the valuation of the penalty under dispute was more than ₹ 50 lakhs. Section 35D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, pertains to procedure of Appellate Tribunal. Subsection (3) of section 35D provides the President or any m
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =