ORDER
D.A. Mehta, J.
1. 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 v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, [1998 (99) E.L.T. 33], 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.