2014 (12) TMI 452

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das; 1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside. 2. After hearing both sides, and on perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 1,03,516/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/- and in another case, there is a demand of duty of Rs. 1,11,019....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the case. It is apparent that the Hon'ble High Court had made observation as the question of law formulated by the Hon'ble Court on merits in the said case. The Hon'ble Madras High Court while confirming the order of the Tribunal on the levy of penalty under Section 11AC had reversed the order of the Tribunal on the question of interest as per Rule 14 read with Section 11AB of the Cent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore Vs Ranka & Ranka - 2012 (284) ELT 186 (Kar.) held as under :-                  "27. In the instant case, the Instruction No. 3/11 is more beneficial than Instruction No. 2/05. If Instruction No. 3/11 is also made applicable to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oticed that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs IOCL and others  vide Final Order No.20664 to 20688 of 2014 dt. 29.4.2014 in relation to appeals of 2007 dismissed the appeal on the ground that duty and penalty involved are less than Rs. 5 lakhs. The Tribunal held that even where appeals were filed prior to issue of the circular by the Board prescribing monetary limits fo....