Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Bhushan Processors Pvt. Ltd.

D.A. Mehta, J.—Mr. D.N. Patel, learned Central Gov ernment Standing Counsel, appearing for the Central Government appears and is heard. The applicant desires that the Court should direct Customs Ex cise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) to refer the question pro posed by the applicant in para 8 of the application. Taking into consideration the (submissions made by the learned Counsel, the provision of Section 11(AC) of the Central Excise Act and the concurrent orders of the Commis sioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad and the CEGAT, West Regional Bench, we do not find any infirmity with the reasoning adopted by the authorities. They have applied the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals, , wherein while interpreting the same phrase occurring in Section 7(5) of Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Legislation, it has been laid down by the Apex Court that the phraseology used in the provision only lays down the maximum amount of penalty which could be levied the discretion to levy penalty of a lesser amount is not taken away. In light of the similar provision found in the Act which the Apex Court was called upon to interpret, even if the question of law arises, the same stands concluded and does not require to be referred or the opinion of this Court. This application is rejected.