C.C.E., Ghaziabad vs M/S.S.V.H. Tech. Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.29 & 30-CE/GZB/2010 dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

C.C.E., Ghaziabad Appellant

Vs.

M/s.S.V.H. Tech. Pvt. Ltd.  Respondent

Shri Sanjeev Maheshwari

Present for the Appellant : Shri.R.K. Mishra, D.R.

Present for the Respondent: Shri.Mayank Garg, Advocate

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 28.07.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 53955-53956/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order No. 29 & 30 CE/GZB 2010 dated 26.02.2010, the Revenue appellant has filed 2 numbers of appeals before this Tribunal, which were listed as appeal No.2278/2010 and 2279/2010. With regard to the appeal No.2278/2010, in the Appeal Memorandum Sl. No.9 the appellant has mentioned Rs.3,41,102/- and Rs.3,12,581/- as the disputed amount of duty. With regard to appeal No.2279/2010 there is no mention about the duty demand in column No.9. On perusal of the impugned order dated 26.02.2010, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the duty demand in some cases and has set aside the same in some other cases. So far as upholding the demand in the adjudication order, there is no scope on the part of the Revenue to file the appeal, since the Revenue is not aggrieved to the demand upheld in the adjudication order. The Revenue can be aggrieved only in case of the demand confirmed in the adjudication has been set aside in the impugned order. In the present case, the adjudged duty demand set aside in the impugned order is to the tune of Rs.2,52,106/-. Thus, it is apparent that the Appeal Memorandum has not been properly filled by the Revenue.

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 case of CCE, Surat-I vs. Sreenath Fabrics reported in 2014 (303) ELT 540 (Guj.) and CCE, Vadodara-I vs. Pharmanza Herbal Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 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.2,52,106/-, which is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 5 Lakhs fixed 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.

[Operative portion pronounced in the Open Court]

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 2