Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Acc ... vs M/S. Time Cinemas Pvt. Ltd

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal12 August 2015

CitationAppeal No. C/1008/2004-Mum.

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Revenue's appeal is dismissed without examination of the merits solely because the amount involved is less than ₹5,00,000, in accordance with the Government's litigation policy as laid down in the Board's instruction dated 17/08/2011, read with the High Court decisions cited; the Tribunal does not reach or decide any question on the merits of the customs dispute.

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/1008/2004-Mum.

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 74/2004/AP CL (ACC) passed by the Commissioner of Customs Airport 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 (Import) ACC Mumbai :

Appellant

M/s. Time Cinemas Pvt. Ltd. :

Respondent

Appearance

None for Appellant

Shri Chatru Singh, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) for respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of hearing : 12/08/2015 Date of decision : 12/08/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.S. Pruthi

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

2. 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.

2 Appeal No. C/1008/2004-Mum.

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