https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46956 In proceedings under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a referable question of law arises where penalties imposed through separate adjudication orders are said to relate to distinct transactions but are challenged as a second penalty on the same facts. The High Court treated that controversy as requiring judicial opinion because the effect of multiple penalties on independent transactions had to be examined to determine whether they were truly successive penalties on identical facts. The Tribunal was therefore directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the question to the High Court. en-us Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:23:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46956 In proceedings under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a referable question of law arises where penalties imposed through separate adjudication orders are said to relate to distinct transactions but are challenged as a second penalty on the same facts. The High Court treated that controversy as requiring judicial opinion because the effect of multiple penalties on independent transactions had to be examined to determine whether they were truly successive penalties on identical facts. The Tribunal was therefore directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the question to the High Court. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46956