Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Atlas Copco India Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. E/892/10-Mum
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may dismiss a revenue appeal as not maintainable where the amount in dispute is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBEC circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal, and such dismissal is without prejudice to the underlying legal issue, which remains open for decision in an appropriate case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/66/M-III/2010 dated 03.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai-III].
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, 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 : No 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, Mumbai-III Appellant
Vs.
M/s Atlas Copco India Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
None for Appellant
Shri Ashutosh Nath, A.C. (AR) for Respondent
CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing: 09.06.2015
Date of Decision: 09.06.2015
ORDER NO.
Per: Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against impugned Order No. YDB/66/M-III/2010 dated 03.02.2010.
2. After hearing the departmental Representative and perusal of records, I find that the amount involved in this case is less than Rs. Five Lakhs. As per the CBEC Circular Number 390/MISC./163/2010-GC dated 27th August 2011, monetory limit of Rs. Five Lakhs is fixed, for filing the appeal to the Tribunal.
3. Since the amount is less than thresh hold limit, I dismiss this appeal, keeping the issue involved open for deciding in an appropriate matter.
4. Appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated in Court)
(M.V. Ravindran) Saifi Member (Judicial)
1
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