Commissioner Of Central ... vs Agarvanshi Aluminum Ltd
- CitationAppeal No 15-2008
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal rests its decision on the principle that an appeal by the Revenue is not maintainable where the amount involved is below Rs. 5 lakhs, and that this limit applies even where the appeal was filed before the Board issued a circular prescribing the mandatory monetary limit, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ranka & Ranka.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 15-2008 dated 17/03/2008 passed by Commisioner Of Customs & Central Excise , HYDERABAD-III ]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 14-2008 dated 17/03/2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , HYDERABAD-III ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI 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?
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 of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise,Customs And Service Tax Hyderabad-iii OPP LB STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)
Versus
Agarvanshi Aluminum Ltd Sy.no.44, Narapally, Ghatkesar Road, RR DIST - 00 AP Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant
Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 29/01/2015
Date of Decision: 29/01/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20176-20177 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
After hearing the learned AR and after going through the records, we find that amounts involved in both these appeals are below Rs.5 lakhs. We also find that even though appeal were filed prior to issue of Circular by the Board prescribing mandatory limits for filing appeal by Revenue, in the light of the 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.), we have to hold that the appeals are not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeals are rejected as not maintainable.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raja.
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