TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (1) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant. Shri K.M. Patwari, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appeal listed to-day is that of Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. However, advocate for the appellant explains that in fact a joint appeal was filed against imposition of penalty on the assessee as well as on Ratankumar Agrawal. He said that separate appeal (E/3896/95) had been filed subsequently by Ratankumar Agrawa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1995 (80) E.L.T. 507, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty are to be set aside. The contention of the departmental representative that the judgment should not be applied for the reason that decision was under appeal to the Supreme Court is not acceptable, since it has not been stayed or set aside as of to-day. 5. His other argumen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment proceedings. It was an additional tax, which was designated penalty. The Supreme Court's judgment in Khemka & Co. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 1549 that penalty under Central Sales Tax Act cannot be levied by a State under the State Sales Tax Act in the absence of a specific provision to this effect and had rightly been applied by the Delhi High Court, which also had benefit of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first case the provisions of the second statute along with other amendment should be read with the first statute. This is far from saying that where one particular provision or some provisions of a statute are referred to in another statute, the effect is as if the entire provisions of the statute referred to should be read into the referring statute. This was not the issue before the Court. T....