Cce, Ludhiana vs Shri Harish Kumar Murghal
- CitationAppeal No. ST/923-924/2009-Cus (DB)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's dismissal rests on a Board instruction fixing a monetary limit of Rs. 5 lakh below which the Department shall not file appeals before the Tribunal, which the Tribunal treats as binding on its disposal of these appeals. The demands in both appeals (Rs. 15,808 and Rs. 17,067) fall below the monetary limit prescribed in that instruction, and the Tribunal holds that, on that footing, the appeals are not to be entertained and are dismissed on that ground alone, without examination of the merits of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding on the Business Auxiliary Service definition.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA No. 150/CE/LDH/2009 dt.24.8.09 and OIA No. 152/CE/LDH/2009 dt.25.8.09 passed by CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh)
CCE, Ludhiana Appellants
Vs.
Shri Harish Kumar Murghal Respondent
Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma
Appearance:
Appellant: Shri D.V.Nagvenkar, AR
Respondent: Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate
HonbleMr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)
HonbleMr.P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)
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? No
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
seen
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
Coram:Honble Mr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)
HonbleMr.P.S.Pruthi, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing/decision: 22.01.2015
FINAL ORDER NO.50731-50732/2015
PER: P.S.PRUTHI
Two appeals are being taken up together. In the first appeal, the Revenue has challenged the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that the definition of taxable service in relation to Business Auxiliary Service categorized under section 65 (105) (zzb) of the Act related to taxable services provided by a commercial concern. It was only from 1.5.2006 vide Notification No.15/2006-ST dated 25/4/2006 that the words commercial concern were substituted by the words any person. Accordingly the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent was an individual and not commercial concern. He accordingly set aside the demand of Rs.15,808/- and penalties.
2. In the second appeal, the issue is the same and the demand of Rs.17,067/-.
3. We note that Boards Instruction F.No.390/Misc/163/2010-JC dated 17.8.2011 prescribed the monetary limit of Rs.5 below which the appeal shall not be filed in the Tribunal. The same has been affirmed by the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE vs. Techno Economic Services Pvt.Ltd.-2010 (20) STR 707 (Bom.).
4. In view of above, the appeals are dismissed.
(Pronounced in the court)
(P.S.PRUTHI) (P.K.DAS)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
mk
1
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