9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 2-3-2012, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial question of law for consideration :- "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal's order setting aside the confiscation and penalty ordered by the Adjudicating Authority is in order in terms of Public Notice No. 152/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order of the adjudicating authority, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, by order dated 13-5-2005 reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1,25,000/= to Rs. 75,000/= and reduced the penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. 3. Against the said order, the first respondent/assessee preferred appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) is well within the limit of Rs. 2 lakhs, the present appeal, filed by the Department, is not maintainable. 5. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Department and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/assessee and perused the materials available on record. 6. Even though these appeals were admitted on the above question of law, referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redemption fine and penalty being less than Rs. 2 lakhs, the appeal is not maintainable. 8. The abovesaid circular issued by the Board is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the question of law formulated and in the light of the Board's circular menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
