Commissioner Of Customs (Export), ... vs M/S. Globe Agencies

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal4 September 2015

CitationAppeal No. C/1216/2004-Mum

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal may dismiss a Revenue appeal without examining its merits where the amount of duty involved is below the monetary threshold fixed by the Government's litigation policy, as set out in the Board's instruction, read with the High Court decisions it cites, which the Tribunal treats as binding in the matter before it.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALWEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAICOURT NO.Appeal No. C/1216/2004-Mum

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.94/03/CAC/CC/SK dated 31.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumbai )

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, 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 Customs (Export), Mumbai :

Appellant

M/s. Globe Agencies :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri A.K. Singh, Additional Commissioner (A.R.)for Appellant

Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for respondent

CORAM:

Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical) Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 04/09/2015 Date of decision : 04/09/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.S. Pruthi

This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The amount involved is less than `5,00,000/-.

2. We find in this case that although the Order-in-Original mentioned duty amount to be Rs.20,19,970/-, the Review order issued by the Member (L & J) dt. 28.10.2004 states that the duty free clearances involved amount of duty of Rs.1,80,699/-. We also note that duty amount in the relevant Bill of Entry No. 4089 dt.9.3.1994 shows a duty amount which is less than `5,00,000/-.

3. Keeping in view the fact that the amount involved is less than ` 5,00,000/- and as per the litigation policy of the Government vide Boards letter F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17/08/2011 read with Honble Gujarat High Courts judgments in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. Shreenath Fabrics reported in 2014 (303) ELT 540 (Guj.) and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, 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 Commissioner of Central Excise, 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.

(Pronounced in Court)

(Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial)

(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)

SM.

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