Commissioners Of Central Excise vs Unique Healthcare Products
- CitationAppeal No. : E/25/2008
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Revenue's appeal is not maintainable where the demand in dispute is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBEC circular issued under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Tribunal is bound to follow that circular in accordance with the Gujarat High Court's decision in Pharmanza Herbal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[ Arising out of OIA-KRS/45/VAPI/2007 dtd 20.9.2007 Passed by Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VAPI ]
Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VAPI - Appellant(s)
Vs
Unique Healthcare Products - Respondent (s)
Represented by For Assessee : Shri S J Vyas, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 27/7/2015
ORDER No. A/11162 / 2015 dtd 27/7/2015
Per : Mr.P.K. Das,
Revenue filed this appeal against the Order of Commissioner (Appeals), where the Adjudication Order was set aside. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs 28,537/- alongwith interest and penalty.
2. We find that the CBEC vide Circular No 390/Misc/163/2010-JC dtd 17th August, 2011 issued under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act 1944 has restricted the filing of the appeal of the Revenue in respect of monetary limit of Rs 5 lacs. The Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara vs Pharmanza Herbal Pvt Ltd - 2014(312)ELT.53(Guj.) following the circular, rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, as it was less than the prescribed Rules.
3. In view of that, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected as it is less than the prescribed limit as per Board Circular. The Revenue appeal is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
swami ??
??
??
??
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