9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - E/313 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not reach for hearing. On a few occasions, at the request of the respondent, the matter was adjourned. On some occasions, the matter was adjourned at the request of the Departmental Representative. The matter came before Division Bench on 4-11-2009 when both the appellants and respondents were represented. The following directions were given : "Registry to verify whether the matter relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the respondent was Rs. 7,71,338/- and total penalty imposed was amounting to Rs. 11,71,338/-. Therefore, he was of the opinion that, perhaps, there was no proper appreciation of the facts by the registry and therefore, the matter has been listed before Single Member Bench. He submits that the matter may be placed before Division Bench. Learned SDR agrees with the submissions by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the appeal is within jurisdiction of the Single Member Bench. (d) The Bench can also notice the lack of jurisdiction while hearing the matter on merits. 6. In this particular case, it was originally referred by Single Member Bench to Division Bench on 30-3-2005 and the Division Bench has subsequently ordered the registry to verify whether the matter relates to the jurisdiction of lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
