Jurisdictional threshold for Single Member Bench: duty and penalty must be assessed separately, not clubbed together.

For determining Single Member Bench jurisdiction under the Central Excise Act, duty and penalty are to be assessed independently because the provision uses the disjunctive "or" and fixes a ten lakh rupee limit for cases heard singly. Relying on binding precedent, the stated interpretation rejects aggregation of duty and penalty for jurisdictional purposes. Accordingly, the objection based on clubbing the two amounts is inconsistent with the settled construction of the provision, and a Single Member Bench may hear the matter where neither amount individually exceeds the statutory threshold.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for determining the jurisdiction of a Single Member Bench under section 35D(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the duty involved and the penalty or fine involved are to be aggregated or are to be considered independently.

Analysis: The provision fixes a limit of ten lakh rupees for cases that may be heard singly. The language of clauses (a) and (b) uses the word "or", and the cited binding precedent held that duty and penalty are to be reckoned independently. The objection based on clubbing the duty and penalty amounts was therefore inconsistent with the settled interpretation of the provision.

Conclusion: The duty and penalty are to be considered separately for jurisdictional purposes, and the Single Member Bench has jurisdiction where neither amount individually exceeds ten lakh rupees.

---