Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs (1) Crystal Marketing Corporation
- CitationAppeal No. 10/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal rests its dismissal of the Revenue's appeals on a monetary-limit instruction: where the amount involved is below the prescribed threshold, the Department's appeal before the Tribunal is not to be entertained, and that instruction governs appeals filed before its issue as well as those filed after. The Tribunal adopts, for this proposition, the view of the High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ranka & Ranka that a Board circular fixing a monetary limit for departmental appeals applies to appeals already pending or filed before the circular was issued, and treats that reasoning as applicable to the present circular notwithstanding that the Ranka decision concerned income tax.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 10/2010 dated 17/06/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Excise And Service Tax, Hyderabad] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 05/2010 dated 29/07/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Visakhapatnam]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE Mr. 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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax Hyderabad-III Opp. LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500 004 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs Visakhapatnam-II Central Excise Building, Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530 035 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Versus (1) Crystal Marketing Corporation Habsiguda, Hyderabad Respondent(s)
(2) RHI Clasil Ltd.
Venkatapuram Village, Thanam Post Visakhapatnam Dist. - 531 021 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Mohd Yusuf & Mr. R. Gurunathan, AR For the Appellants
(1) None
(2) Ms Radhika Shriranjini, Advocate Flat No. 3, First Floor, No. 9 (New No. 21) Thanikachalam Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017 For the Respondents
Date of Hearing: 05/03/2015 Date of Decision: 05/03/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order Nos. 20519-20520 / 2015
Per: B.S.V. MURTHY
Heard both the sides.
2. In both the appeals the amount involved is less than Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). According to the instruction issued under F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.08.2011, monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue has been fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). Since in both the appeals the amount is less than Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only), the appeals have to be rejected. As regards appeals filed prior to issue of these instructions, 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.)] has taken a view that the circular is applicable in respect of appeals filed prior to issue of instructions also. Even though the decision relates to income tax, it was rendered in respect of a similar circular issued by CBDT. Therefore both the appeals have to be rejected and are rejected.
(Order pronounced in open court)
(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER
iss
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