https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49899 The expression "or" in Section 35D(3)(a) and Section 35D(3)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held to be plain and disjunctive, not read as "and". Duty and penalty were required to be assessed separately for determining the appropriate Bench, so if either amount individually crossed the prescribed monetary limit, the matter would lie outside Single Member jurisdiction. en-us Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:47:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49899 The expression "or" in Section 35D(3)(a) and Section 35D(3)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was held to be plain and disjunctive, not read as "and". Duty and penalty were required to be assessed separately for determining the appropriate Bench, so if either amount individually crossed the prescribed monetary limit, the matter would lie outside Single Member jurisdiction. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49899