Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ... vs Sfo Technologies Pvt Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. 135/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Revenue's appeals are not maintainable where the duty involved is below Rs. 5,00,000, even though they were filed before the Board's circular prescribing monetary limits for departmental appeals, because the Tribunal follows the Karnataka High Court's decisions in Ranka & Ranka and Mico Ltd. holding that such limits apply to pending appeals.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 135/2010 dated 30/07/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), Bangalore.]
For approval and signature:
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? 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 Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-CUS C.R. BUILDING,QUEENS ROAD, P.B.NO. 5400, BANGALORE 560 001. KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
Versus
SFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD NO.99-101, KIADB INDL.AREA, 4TH PHASE, BOMMASANDRA, BANGALORE 560 099 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. A. K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant
None For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 20/02/2015
Date of Decision: 20/02/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20442-20443 / 2015
Per : B.S.V.MURTHY
In these appeals, the duty amount involved is less than Rs.5,00,000/-. Even though these appeals were filed prior to issue of the Circular by the Board prescribing mandatory limits for filing the appeal by Revenue, in the light of the decisions of 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.) and CCE & ST, Bangalore vs. Mico Ltd.: 2012 (281) E.L.T. 680 (Kar.), I hold that these appeals are not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeals are rejected as not maintainable.
(Order pronounced in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 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