Cst Bangalore vs Natsem India Design Pvt Ltd

ST/CROSS/4/2012 in ST/2402/2011-SM, ST/2403/2011-SM, ST/2404/2011-SM

Appeal(s) Involved:

ST/2402/2011-SM, ST/2403/2011-SM, ST/2404/2011-SM

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 243-245-2011 dated 30/03/2011 passed by CCE(Appeals-I), 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?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

CST BANGALORE NO. 16/1, S.P. COMPLEX, LALBAGH ROAD, Appellant(s)

Versus

NATSEM INDIA DESIGN PVT LTD

Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant

Shri L.S. Karthikeyan, Advocate For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 10/03/2015

Date of Decision: 10/03/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20604-20606 / 2015

Per : B.S.V. MURTHY

Heard both the sides.

2. In all these appeals, the amount involved is less than Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). According to the instructions issued under F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.08.2011, monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue has been fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). Since in these appeals the amount is less than Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only), the appeals have to be rejected. As regards appeals filed prior to issue of these instructions, 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.)] has taken a view that the circular is applicable in respect of appeals filed prior to issue of instructions also. Even though the decision relates to income tax, it was rendered in respect of a similar circular issued by CBDT. Therefore the appeals have to be rejected and are rejected.

3. The learned counsel submitted that the respondents have filed cross-objection also. He fairly agrees that the cross-objection was filed beyond the period prescribed which is 45 days from the date of communication of appeal. The respondents received the copies of the appeals in December, 2011 whereas the cross-objection was filed in March 2012. No COD application was filed. Today also, the learned counsel could not explain why the delay occurred so that it can be condoned and such application can be considered. In the absence of a COD application and in the absence of any explanation for the delay, when the matter had already come up for final hearing, it would not be appropriate to postpone the hearing only for enabling the respondent to file COD application for cross-objection. Since appeals filed by the Revenue are being rejected, it is felt that no serious grievance will be caused to the appellant by not considering the cross-objection. If they were aggrieved any of the decisions, naturally they would have filed appeals also. Under the circumstances, the cross-objection is not considered.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER

Raja.

3