C.C., Noida vs Blue Prime Aluminium Ltd
- CitationCustoms Appeal No.C/50697/2014-CU [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Revenue's appeal is not maintainable where the duty involved, together with equal penalty and interest, is Rs. 5,00,000 or less, in view of the CBEC monetary-limit instruction (Circular No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.08.2011), which bars the Department from filing appeals before the Tribunal in such cases, and the appeal must therefore be dismissed without examining the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.NOI/ EXCUS/000/APPL/ 198/ 13-14 dated 18/10/2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, NOIDA].
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., NOIDA Appellant
Vs.
Blue Prime Aluminium Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.G.R. Singh, D.R.
Present for the Respondent: Shri.V.K. Gupta, Advocate
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 24/07/2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 53957/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 18/10/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), NOIDA, 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 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.1.00 Lakh, 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
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