9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appeal listed to-day is that of Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. However, advocate for the appellant explains that in fact a joint appeal was filed against imposition of penalty on the assessee as well as on Ratankumar Agrawal. He said that separate appeal (E/3896/95) had been filed subsequently by Ratankumar Agrawal alongwith an application for condonati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty are to be set aside. The contention of the departmental representative that the judgment should not be applied for the reason that decision was under appeal to the Supreme Court is not acceptable, since it has not been stayed or set aside as of to-day. 5. His other argument that the confiscation and penalty could be ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was designated penalty. The Supreme Court's judgment in Khemka & Co. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 1549 that penalty under Central Sales Tax Act cannot be levied by a State under the State Sales Tax Act in the absence of a specific provision to this effect and had rightly been applied by the Delhi High Court, which also had benefit of considering argument as to the applicability of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with other amendment should be read with the first statute. This is far from saying that where one particular provision or some provisions of a statute are referred to in another statute, the effect is as if the entire provisions of the statute referred to should be read into the referring statute. This was not the issue before the Court. The reference in section 3(3) of 1957 Act to the word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment of the 1957 Act in 1994 specifically incorporated penal provisions, and the fact that at least 4 benches of the Tribunal of different members CCE v. Sri Parmesh Silk Mills, 1996 (15) RLT 63, CCE v. Motley Industries Ltd., 1995 (6) RLT 580, CCE v. Padmanabh Silk Mills, 1997 (91) E.L.T. 143, and unreported decision in appeal No. E/139/88 in CCE v. M/s. Manila Dyeing & Printing Mills have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
