9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the penalty amount was also of Rs. 5,78,958/- and the fine imposed was Rs. 85,000/-, and that, in the cross-objection filed by the respondent, the respondent has challenged the confirmed demand of Rs. 66,600/- as well as the penalty of Rs. 15,000/-, the Single Member Bench will have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. He relies on the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 35D of the Central Excise Act pointing out therefrom that a Single Member Bench cannot hear the matters where the difference in duty involved or the duty involved or the amount of fine or penalty involved does not exceed Rs. 10 lacs. He relies upon the decision of a Division Bench in Dhampur Sugar Mills v. C.C.E. reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 106, for contending tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the condition in any one of them only. 3. Section 35D(3) in the context of which the preliminary objection is raised and argued and an order is sought by both the sides thereon, reads as under :- 35D(3). The President or any other member of the Appellate Tribunal authorized in this behalf by the President may, sitting singly, dispose of any case which has been allotted to the Bench of which he is a member where- (a) in any disputed case, other than a case where the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment is in issue or one of the points in issue, the difference in duty involved or the duty involved; or (b) the amount of fine or penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty can arise. 5. Though, prima facie, the purpose underlying sub-section (3) of Section 35D appears to be of fixing a limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 10 lacs in cases, which can be heard by the Single Member Bench, that view cannot be taken by this Single Member Bench, in view of the binding decision of the Division Bench in R.M. Brothers (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur-I reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 776, in which the Division Bench has held as under, in paragraph 4 of the judgment :- 4. We have heard rival submissions and also perused relevant clauses of Section 35D. We note that the word used in the two clauses is 'or'. It clearly indicates that penalty and duty are to be reckoned independently. That is if the quantum of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
