Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... vs M/S P&B Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal30 July 2015

CitationAppeal No.E/1195/2007-DB

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal rejects a Revenue appeal where the duty demanded is below the monetary threshold fixed by the CBEC circular dated 17.08.2011, and holds that the circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals on the authority of the High Court's decision in Siddhi Freezers, which the Tribunal is bound to follow.

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 Ahmedabad

Appeal No.E/1195/2007-DB [Arising out of OIA No.COMMR(A)/160/VDR-I/2007, dt.27.07.2007, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax,Vadodara]

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara-I Appellant

M/s P&B Pharmaceuticals Ltd Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative For Respondent: Shri Kuntal Parikh, Advocate

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 of Seen the order?

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

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:30.07.2015

Order No. A/11143 / 2015 dt.30.07.2015

Per: P.K. Das

Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), where the Adjudication order was set aside as the demand is barred by limitation.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the demand of duty is Rs.3,38,225.00 alongwith interest and penalty is for the period 1992-1997.

3. CBEC Circular F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC, dt.17.08.2011 held that Revenue would not file appeal below Rs.5 lakhs before the Tribunal. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner Vs Siddhi Freezers & Exporters Pvt.Ltd 2014 (309) ELT A 95 (Kar.) observed that the said circular would be applicable retrospectively. Following the CBEC Circular dt.17.08.2011 (supra) and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Siddhi Freezers & Exporters Pvt.Ltd (supra), the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected as the amount involved is less than Rs.5 lakhs.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 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