Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 448 - AT - Central ExciseListing before Single Member Bench or Division Bench Appeal listed before Single Member Bench which directed to be listed before Division Bench. Division Bench in 2009 directed registry to verify whether matter relates to jurisdiction of Single Member. Penalty under challenge more than Rs, 10 lakh. Total demand confirmed in order in original is Rs. 7, 71, 338/- and penalty of Rs. 11,71,338/-. Held that no proper appreciation of facts by registry. Lack of jurisdiction of SMB as pointed out by assessee endorsed by view of Department. Registry directed to consider matter afresh and do needful.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Single Member Bench vs. Division Bench
Analysis: The judgment revolves around the issue of whether an appeal should be heard by a Single Member Bench or a Division Bench based on the amount involved and the proper appreciation of facts by the registry. Initially, the Single Member Bench referred the matter to the Division Bench due to the amount involved being more than Rs. 10 lakhs. However, during subsequent hearings before the Division Bench, the correct position regarding jurisdiction was not brought to light by either party. The learned Advocate for the respondent highlighted the penalty under challenge exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs and the discrepancy in the registry's listing decision. Both the Advocate and the Departmental Representative agreed that the matter should be placed before the Division Bench. The judgment emphasizes the importance of correctly filling appeal memoranda to indicate the issues and amounts involved, urging the registry to assign cases to the appropriate Bench from the beginning to avoid such discrepancies. It also stresses the responsibility of both sides to verify jurisdiction before a Single Member Bench and allows the Bench to address jurisdictional issues during the hearing. In conclusion, considering the lack of jurisdiction pointed out by the Advocate and supported by the SDR, the judgment directs the registry to reevaluate the matter and take necessary actions to ensure the case is appropriately placed before the relevant Bench for further proceedings.
|