Cce, Salem vs M/S. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation
- Case No.Appeal No. ST/41386/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal was filed within the period permitted where the adjudicating authority's order was followed by a reviewing authority's order obtained by Revenue within three months, and an appeal then filed in accordance with sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994; such an appeal is not barred by limitation. Where the adjudicating authority has examined the liability and the relevance of input services in a reasoned order, and the Revenue's appeal raises no independent error on the merits, the Tribunal will not interfere with that order on merits. An appeal by the Revenue may also be dismissed where the disputed amount falls below the pecuniary limit prescribed by the Board for filing appeals, so as to avoid repetitive litigation on minor sums.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.78/2014-ST dated 27.2.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem)
CCE, Salem Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Respondent
Appearance
Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri P. Mahalingam, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 30.09.2015
Final Order No. 41333 / 2015
Revenue has come in appeal with the precise submission that Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed the appeal of Revenue holding that its appeal was belatedly filed beyond the limitation prescribed by section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. The submission of Revenue is acceptable for the reason that the date on which the adjudicating authority has passed order, within three months thereof Revenue has obtained order of Reviewing Authority and come in appeal in accordance with sanction of law under sub-section (2) and (3) of section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, following the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of CCE, Delhi III Vs. M/s. Kap Cones 2015-TIOL-149-SC-CX, Revenue succeeds on limitation.
3. As far as merit of the appeal is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel that according to the norm laid by Ministry of Finance, the department should not file appeal when the demand is below Rs.5 lakhs. Secondly, it is also submission of the respondents that the services were integrally connected with export of tea.
4. Perusal of the adjudication order shows that learned adjudicating authority while sanctioning refund of Rs.36,644/- has thoroughly examined the liability aspect of the respondent and also relevancy of the input services which was CHA and terminal handling charges suffering service tax. He held that such services were integrally connected with the export. He has also examined the documents furnished before him in support of claim of refund.
5. When an elaborate order has been passed by the learned adjudicating authority, interference to the order of that authority is undesirable on merit and unproductive for the Tribunal for which Revenue appeal is dismissed. Also dismissal is desirable on the count of pecuniary limit prescribed for the appeal by the Board to reduce the dispute without repetitive litigation in appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex
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