Cce, Thane-I vs M/S Ambhe Ferro Metal Processors P. Ltd

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal18 June 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/1853/10-Mum, E/208, 245, 339, 340, 431, 445, 509/11-Mum

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal holds that an appeal to it is not maintainable where the amount in dispute is below the monetary threshold fixed by the CBEC circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal, and on that ground dismisses the appeals while leaving the substantive issue open.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALWEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAICOURT NO. I

Appeal No. E/1853/10-Mum, E/208, 245, 339, 340, 431, 445, 509/11-Mum E/CO/63/11 to E/CO/24/11-Mum

[Arising out of O-I-A No. SB/112/Th-I/2010 dtd. 22.10.2010 passed by CCE, Mumbai, AKP/292/NSK/2010 dtd. 29.10.2010 passed by CCE, Nashik, PKS/395/BEL/2010 dtd. 11.11.2010 passed by CCE, Mumbai-III, M-I/AV/259-260/2010 dtd. 07.10.2010 passed by CCE, Mumbai-I, SB/49/Th-I/2010 dtd. 27.01.2011 passed by CCE, Mumbai-I, AGS(323)49/2010 dtd. 14.12.2010 passed by CCE, Aurangabad, M-I/AV/354-355/2010 dtd. 23.11.2010 passed by CCE, Mumbai-I.

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

======================================================

CCE, Thane-I CCE, Nashik CCE, Mumbai-III CCE,Mumbai-I CCE, Thane-I CCE. Aurangabad Appellants Vs. M/s Ambhe Ferro Metal Processors P. Ltd. M/s Graphite India Ltd. M/s BBR (India) P. Ltd. M/s BPCL M/s Thaiyo Lucid Pvt. Ltd. M/s Time Packaging Ltd. Respondents

Appearance:

Shri S. Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for Appellants

None for Respondents

CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing: 18.06.2015

Date of Decision: 18.06.2015

ORDER NO.

Per: Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

1. These all appeals are filed by the revenue against impugned Order Nos. SB/112/Th-I/2010 dtd. 22.10.2010, AKP/292/NSK/2010 dtd. 29.10.2010, PKS/395/BEL/2010 dtd. 11.11.2010, M-I/AV/259-260/2010 dtd. 07.10.2010, SB/49/Th-I/2010 dtd. 27.01.2011, AGS(323)49/2010 dtd. 14.12.2010, M-I/AV/354-355/2010 dtd. 23.11.2010.

2. Since all the appeals raise the same question, they are being disposed by the common order. After hearing the departmental Representative and perusal of records, I find that the amount involved in these cases is less than Rs. Five Lakhs. As per the CBEC Circular Number 390/MISC./163/2010-GC dated 27th August 2011, monetary limit of Rs. Five Lakhs is fixed, for filing the appeal to the Tribunal.

3. Since the amount is less than threshold limit, I dismiss all the appeals keeping the issue involved open for deciding in an appropriate matter.

4. Appeals are dismissed and CO disposed of.

(Dictated in Court) (M.V. Ravindran) Saifi Member (Judicial)

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