9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside. 2. After hearing both sides, and on perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 66,816/-. The learned AR for Revenue submits that the amount may be less than Rs. 5 lakhs but t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d made observation in the context of question of law formulated by the Hon'ble Court on merits of the case. The Hon'ble Madras High Court while confirming the order of the Tribunal on the levy of penalty under Section 11AC had reversed the order of the Tribunal on the question of interest as per Rule 14 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. The learned Advocate on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Ranka & Ranka - 2012 (284) E.L.T. 185 (Kar.) held as under :- "27. In the instant case, the Instruction No. 3/11 is more beneficial than Instruction No. 2/05. If Instruction No. 3/11 is also made applicable to the pending appeals before this Court, it would grant relief to the assessee. Apart from granting relief to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20688 of 2014, dated 29-4-2014 in relation to appeals of 2007 dismissed the appeal on the ground that duty and penalty involved is less than Rs. 5 lakhs. The Tribunal held that even where appeals were filed prior to issue of the circular by the Board prescribing monetary limits for filing the appeals by the Revenue, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Ranka & Ran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
