Commissioner Of Customs (Import) ... vs M/S Goetz (I) Ltd
- CitationAPPEAL NO. C/1087/04
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed without examination of the merits because the amount involved is below Rs. 5,00,000, and the Revenue's own litigation policy, as set out in the Board's letter dated 17.08.2011, directs that such appeals not be pursued; that policy is applied in light of the Gujarat and Karnataka High Court decisions cited in the order, which the Tribunal treats as supporting the same course.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV
APPEAL NO. C/1087/04 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 411/2004 JNCH dated 18.08.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I.) For approval and signature: Honbl Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Honble Shri 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 : 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 Customs (Import) Mumbai
: Appellant Versus
M/s Goetz (I) Ltd.
: Respondent
Appearance Shri Chatru Singh, Asst. Commissioner (A.R.) : For Appellant None : For Respondent
CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI P.S. PRUTHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HONBLE SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing : 30.09.2015 Date of Decision: 30.09.2015
ORDER NO.......................................................
Per: P.S. Pruthi:
This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The amount involved is less than Rs. 5,00,000/-.
2. Keeping in view the fact that the amount involved is less than Rs. 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 Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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.
(Pronounced in open Court)
(Ramesh Nair) (P.S. Pruthi) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Sp
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