Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Cipla Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. E/1280/07
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Revenue's appeal is dismissed without examination of the merits because the amount in dispute falls below the monetary threshold fixed by the Board's litigation policy, which the Tribunal applies to pending appeals by virtue of the Board's clarification of 1.1.2016, and the Tribunal is bound to follow the High Court decisions the Board's policy relies on, which hold that such appeals are not to be pursued where the tax effect is below the prescribed limit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SRK/275/MUMBAI-III/2007 dated 13.8.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical)
======================================================
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 : Yes 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-II Appellant
Vs.
M/s Cipla Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri H.M. Dixit, AC (AR) for Appellant
Shri Narendra Dave, C.A. for Respondent
CORAM:
SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: 03.08.2016
Date of Decision: 03.08.2016
ORDER NO.
Per: Ramesh Nair This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The amount involved is less than Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. In partial modification of the Boards Circular F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015, the monetary limit for filing of appeals in the Tribunal has been increased from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. Recently, the CBE&C vide Circular dated 1.1.2016 has clarified that the litigation policy shall be applicable with regard to the pending cases also.
3. Keeping in view the fact that the amount involved is less than Rs.10,00,000/- 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.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court)
(Raju) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Sinha
1 Appeal No. E/1280/07
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