9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of use of the "Each", it has to be held that the said penalty is not individually imposed upon both the respondents but as a collective penal action against them, thus leading us to conclude that 50% is on Shri Subhash Rajani and 50% on Smt. Nimmi Rajani. If that be so, the Revenue's appeal would be covered by the Litigation Policy. Also appreciating the fact that such imposition of penalties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Litigation Policy. 2. Learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue submits that the amount involved in the present appeal is to the extent of ₹ 11,12,040/-, which exceeds the limit of ₹ 10 lakhs provided under the Litigation Policy. As such he submits that inasmuch as Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty of ₹ 11,12,040/-, Revenue's appeal was admissible and should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be entitled to small scale exemption benefit separately. As such it can be seen that the penalty of ₹ 11,12,040/- approximately stand imposed upon both the said respondents. In the absence of use of the Each , it has to be held that the said penalty is not individually imposed upon both the respondents but as a collective penal action against them, thus leading us to conclude that 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
