2003 (5) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant. Shri A. Chopra, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 61,335/- and penalty of equivalent amount, demanded and imposed on the ground that the applicant did not pay duty in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 96ZQ on the one of its two stenters for the period from 16th and 17th December, 1998. 2. E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t liberty to chose whichever appears to be more easy and correct. 3. This is in fact the view expressed by the Bombay High Court in C.I.T. v. Godavaridevi Saraf - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 624). However, the departmental representative brings to our notice the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved Prakash - 1989 (178) ITR 332 and of the Delhi High Court in T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not be binding on this Bench of the Tribunal has to be accepted. We hasten to add that we have not considered the case in which an appeal of an assessee who is subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is heard by a Bench of the Tribunal situated outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. Counsel for the applicant contends that it wrote on 15th December to the Asstt. Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X