Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs M/S. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal2 June 2015

CitationAPPEAL NO. E/780/10-MUM

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Revenue's appeal is not maintainable where the amount involved is below the monetary threshold prescribed in the departmental litigation policy, and this bar applies equally to appeals filed before the policy was issued, following the High Court decisions the Tribunal relies on.

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

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALWEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAICOURT NO. IIAPPEAL NO. E/780/10-MUM

[Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. SR/98/NGP/2010 dtd. 23/3/2010 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, 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 :

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?

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

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur :

Appellants

M/s. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri. H.M. Dixit, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants None for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 2/6/2015 Date of decision: 2/6/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : Ramesh Nair

This Appeal filed by the Revenue involving refund of Rs. 3,26,878/- which is less than Rs. Five Lakhs. In terms of Government Litigation Policy Vide F. No. 390/MISC/163/2010/JC dated 17/8/2011 Revenue is not supposed to file appeal against order of the Commissioner(Appeals) if amount involved is less than Rs. 5 lakhs. As regard this appeal which is filed before the issuance of litigation policy dated 17/8/2011. The Honble High Court of Karnataka judgment in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III V/s. Presscom Products [2011(268) E.L.T. 344(Kar)] and Honble High Court Gujarat judgments- Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Surat-I V/s. Shreenath Fabrics [2014 (303) E.L.T. 540(Guj)] and Commr. of C.Ex. & Cus., Vadodara-I V/s. Pharmanza Herbal Pvt. Ltd[2014(306)E.L.T. 153(Guj)] has held that the monitory limit prescribed under circular shall also be applicable in the cases which were filed prior to issuance of Litigation of policy.

2. In view of the above settled legal position the present appeal involving amount Rs. 3,26,878/- which is less than threshold limit of Rs. 5 lakhs is not maintainable and same is dismissed without going into merit of the case.

(Dictated in court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk

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