Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs M/S Cauvery Motors Pvt.Ltd
- CitationAppeal No 192-2009
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Revenue's appeal is not maintainable where the amount in dispute is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board's circular for filing appeals by the department, and the Tribunal is bound to give effect to the High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ranka & Ranka, which holds that such Board instructions are binding on the department and govern its right to appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 192-2009 dated 13/05/2009 passed by CCE(Appeals), Mangalore]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 07 & 08-2010 dated 07/01/2010 passed by CCE(Appeals), Bangalore ]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 43-2010 dated 20/01/2010 passed by CCE(Appeals), Mangalore]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
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?
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax MANGALORE NULL 7TH FLOOR...TRADE CENTRE, BUNTS HOSTEL RD., MANGALORE, - 575003 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax CST BANGALORE NO. 16/1, S.P. COMPLEX, LALBAGH ROAD, Appellant(s)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax MYSORE NULL S1-S2...VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570011 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S CAUVERY MOTORS PVT.LTD PLOT NO.124-CI, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA, Mangalore 575 011. Respondent(s)
MACMILLAN INDIA LTD HMG Ambassador, 137, Residency Road, Bangalore 560 025.
Respondent(s)
RAJARATNAIAH & CO.
1211, III STAGE, 10TH MAIN, GOKULAM, MYSORE.
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellants
Shri K. Krishnamurthy, Advocate Shri Ashok Deshpande, Advocate For the Respondenst
Date of Hearing: 30/01/2015
Date of Decision: 30/01/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20375-20378 / 2015
Per : B.S.V. MURTHY
These appeals filed by the Revenue are against the impugned orders. The amount involved in these cases is less than Rs.5 lakhs.
2. After hearing both the sides and after going through the records, I find that even though appeals were filed prior to issue of Circular by the Board prescribing mandatory limits for filing appeal by Revenue, in the light of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Ranka & Ranka reported in 2012 (284) E.L.T. 185 (Kar.), I have to hold that the appeals are not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeals are rejected as not maintainable. Cross objection and miscellaneous application also get disposed of. (Operative portion of this order pronounced in the court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER
Raja.
3
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