9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal instructions conferring the jurisdiction on the departmental officers are only supplement the procedural functioning in furtherance of administration but does not take away the rights nor cause any prejudice to the parties, if any irregularities committed – case remanded - E/45/1999-Mum - A/573/2007-WZB/C-II/(EB), - Dated:- 9-8-2007 - S/Shri T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J) and K.K. Agarwal, Memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt upto Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) but not more than that. In the instant case, the adjudicating officer has confirmed three demands for a total sum of over Rs.7.5 lakhs, as such it is held that the subject matter crossed the monetary ceiling of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) and on this ground alone it is observed that the impugned order can be set aside. 3. Second aspect is that by virtue o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Commissioner has confirmed the demands as noted in the impugned order. 5. The learned JDR points out that Circular No.3/92-Cx.6, dated 14.5.1992 on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance in deciding the issue of jurisdiction, was not in force (or non existence) when the matter was adjudicated by the original authority. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed by them at best as matter of propriety. Issuance of show cause or adjudication contrary to such directions could not be set aside for want of jurisdiction, especially as no prejudice is caused thereby to assessee/noticee. 6. We are convinced on the points raised by the learned JDR, Shri Lama that the circular No.3/92-C.6, dated 14.5.1992 cannot be relied upon by the Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
