Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-I vs Max Engineers

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal30 July 2015

CitationAPPEAL No. E/2908/06-Mum

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the amount involved is below the monetary threshold fixed by the Government's litigation policy, and the Tribunal therefore declines to examine the merits; the dismissal rests on the litigation policy as applied through the cited High Court decisions, which the order does not itself reason through.

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. IAPPEAL No. E/2908/06-Mum

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PI/215/2006 dated 1.6.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) and Honble Mr. S.S. Garg, 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, Pune-I Appellant Vs. Max Engineers Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent AR), for appellant None for respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 30.7.2015 Date of Decision: 30.7.2015

ORDER NO

Per: P.K. Jain

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The amount involved is less than Rs.5,00,000/-.

2. Keeping in view the fact that the amount involved is less than Rs.5,00,000/- and as per the litigation policy of the Government vide Boards letter F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.8.2011 read with Honble Gujarat High Courts judgments in the case of CCE, Surat-I vs. Shreenath Fabrics reported in 2014 (303) ELT 540 (Guj.) and in the case of CCE-Vadodara-I vs. Pharmanza Herbal Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (306) ELT 153 (Guj.) and the judgment of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore-III vs. Presscom Products reported in 2011 (268) ELT 344 (Kar.), the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

(Pronounced in Court)

(S.S. Garg) Member (Judicial) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical)

tvu 1 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