9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (DEL)(T) A. 1521/80 and was taken up for hearing yesterday, and at the request of Shri Bedi, today. 3. It appeared to us that the instant matter should not have been transferred in terms of the proviso to Section 31B(2) of the Act as it now reads, inasmuch as neither the fine nor the penalty levied in the case exceeds ₹ 10,000/-. 4. In terms of the proviso to Section 131B(2) of the Act, a proceeding pending before the Central Government which relates to an order where - (a) value of the goods confiscated absolutely, or (b) the difference in duty involved or duty involved, or (c) the amount of fine or penalty, determined by such order, does not exceed ₹ 10,000/-, such proceeding or matter shall continued to be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- on the appellant while allowing him to redeem the scooter on payment of a fine of ₹ 1000/-. 7. Before us, Shri A.K.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant contended that the word or occurring after sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 131B (2) as well as between the words fine and penalty in sub-clause (c) of the said proviso to Section 131B(2) have to be read as and . Alternatively, he submitted that, at least, the word or occurring between fine and penalty in sub-clause (c) of the proviso to Section 131B(2) should be read as and . He relied upon an extract from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edition, incorporated in the Law Lexicon by Shri T.P. Mukherjee to the effect that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 9. We do not see any such manifest absurdity either in the provision itself or read with the other provisions of the Act, if we do not read and for or . Nor do we find that it is a case where the object of the enactment of Section 131B(2) is frustrated, unless it is so read Quite to the contrary, it would not result in any anomaly whatsoever if we read the proviso as it stands. 10. We have given the purport of the proviso to Section 131B(2) in para 4 supra. It deals with the question of jurisdiction insofar as proceedings pending immediately before the appointed date before the Central Government are concerned in terms of the quantum of fine or penalty or value of goods confiscated absolutely or duty involved. It provides, inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch all the three sub-sections conjunctively read can be satisfied. Accordingly, there is no warrant for adopting a construction that would, in reality, deprive the Central Government of the jurisdiction plainly vested and thus frustrate the obvious intent of the legislature. 12. The contention that the word or occurring between the words fine and penalty in sub-clause (c) of the proviso to Section 131B(2) was one of despair. It recalls to mind the celebrated observation of Lord Simon L.C., extracted in A.I.R. 1967 Goa 169 at 186-to the effect that and/or is a bastard conjunction which was the contribution of commercial courts to basic English. 13. In the premises, we have no hesitation in rejecting the contentions of the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
