Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Krypton Outsourcing Ld on 7 November, 2016

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
DIVISION BENCH
COURT NO.1
Appeal No. E/3318/2009

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.320/CE/Chd-I/2009 dated 29.09.2009 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh]
  Date of Hearing/Decision: 07.11.16

For Approval & signature:

Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. Devender Singh, 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 would be released under Rule 27 of the 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 Department Authorities?
Yes

CCE, Chandigarh				                    Appellant
Vs.
M/s Krypton Outsourcing Ld.                         Respondent

Appearance Shri G.M. Sharma, AR- for the appellant None- for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO: 61627/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:

Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 29.09.2009 of Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh, wherein the demand of duty was dropped.

2. We are informed about the instructions dated 17.12.2015 issued by the CBEC in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 fixing monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed in the Tribunal. The monetary limit has been enhanced to Rs. 10 Lakhs through the said instructions. Further, the Board vide letter dated 1.1.2016 clarified that the said instructions will apply to all pending appeals in CESTAT.

3. We also find that the Honble High Courts of Madras, Karnataka and Gujarat have held that the litigation policy containing monetary limit for filing appeals will apply to pending appeals also. [2015 (40) STR 656 (Mad); 2014 (306) ELT (Guj); 2011 (268) ELT 344 (kar.)]

4. Considering the above position, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) (Devender Singh) Member (Technical) rt 1 E/3318/2009 CCE, Chandigarh Vs. M/s Krypton Outsourcing Ltd..