C.C.E., Delhi-Iii vs M/S. Senior India Pvt. Ltd
- CitationAppeal No.E/55180/2014-EX[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal where the duty involved, together with equal penalty and interest, is Rs. 5,00,000 or less, in view of the Board's circular dated 17.08.2011 prescribing that limit for departmental appeals to the Tribunal; the Tribunal therefore dismisses the appeal without examining the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
Appeal No.E/55180/2014-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.DLI-EXCUS-003-APP-148-14-15, dated 08.07.2014 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Delhi-I]
C.C.E., Delhi-III Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Senior India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance
Mr. MR Sharma, DR - For Appellant
Ms. Madhulika Bose, Advocate - For Respondent
CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Final Order No.__54163/2015_, dated 22.09.2015
Per Mr. S.K. Mohanty :
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi-III, involving the adjudged demand of less than Rs. 5,00,000/-.
2. In contest with filing of appeal before the Tribunal involving the monetary limit, the CBEC vide Circular No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC (8-2011), dated 17.08.2011 has clarified that where the duty involved is Rs.5,00,000/- or below with equal penalty and interest, no appeal shall be filed by the Department before the Tribunal . The Honble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CCE, Surat-I vs. Sreenath Fabrics reported in [2014 (303) ELT 540 (Guj.)] and CCE, Vadodara-I vs. Pharmanza Herbal Pvt. Ltd. [ 2014 (306) ELT 153 (Guj.)] have dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that the demand involved is less than Rs.5.00 Lakhs.
3. In the present case, since the amount involved is Rs.97,996/-, which is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 5 lakhs prescribed by the CBEC vide the above Circular, this appeal is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
[Operated portion pronounced in the open court]
(S.K. Mohanty)
Member (Judicial)
Neha
-2-
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free