M/S Senior Industries vs Cce, Ludhiana

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal20 January 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/1785/2006-Ex (DB)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal may not entertain a Revenue appeal where the amount in dispute is below the monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs for filing appeals, and an assessee's appeal is likewise liable to be rejected where the amount in dispute is below the threshold prescribed under the second proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

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

Judgment

As delivered

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066CIRCUIT BENCH AT CHANDIGARHAppeal No. E/1785/2006-Ex (DB)

[Arising out of OIA No.119 & 120/CE/CHD/06, dt.22.02.2006 passed by CCE (Appeals), Ludhiana]

M/s Senior Industries Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Ludhiana Respondent

AND

Appeal No. E/1840-1841/2006-Ex (DB)

[Arising out of OIA No.119 & 120/CE/CHD/06, dt.22.02.2006 passed by CCE (Appeals), Ludhiana]

CCE, Ludhiana Respondent

Vs.

M/s Senior Industries

M/s Jayco Industries Appellants

Appearance:

Present for the Appellants: Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocate

Present for Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Authorised Representative

Honble Mr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr.P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would 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?

Seen

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Coram: Honble Mr. P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr.P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing/decision: 20.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO.51062-51064/2015

PER: P.K.DAS

These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.

2. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.2,73,480.00 alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Adjudication order in so far as the demand of duty of Rs.65,308.00 alongwith interest and penalty for the period 06.09.2001 to April, 2002 were set aside. Both the sides filed appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. After considering the submissions of both sides, we find that the Revenue appeal relates to much below monetary limit of Rs.2 lakhs as prescribed by the Board vide F.No.390/Misc/163/110/JC, dt.17.08.2011. Similarly, the assessee appeal relates to the amount much below the amount prescribed under second proviso to Section 35B(1) of Central Excise Act 1944, and therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is also liable to be rejected.

4. Both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are rejected.

(Pronounced in the court)

(P.S.PRUTHI) (P.K.DAS)

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

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