Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs (Exp) vs M/S.Dilipkumar & Co on 14 July, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II APPEAL No.C/1044/05 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.251/2005/MCH dated 24/06/2005 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) 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 (Exp), Mumbai Appellant Vs. M/s.Dilipkumar & Co. Respondent Appearance:
Shri.MK Sarangi, Jt. Comm. (AR) for appellant Shri.ND George, Advocate for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 14/07/2016 Date of Decision : 14/07/2016 ORDER NO Per: Ramesh Nair
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The amount involved is less than Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue has placed a letter on record saying that he has no instruction to withdraw the appeal, so far.
3. In partial modification of the Boards Circular F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015, the monetary limit for filing of appeals in the Tribunal has been increased from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. Recently, the CBE&C vide Circular dated 1.1.2016 has clarified that the litigation policy shall be applicable with regard to the pending cases also.
4. Keeping in view the fact that the amount involved is less than Rs.10,00,000/- and as per the litigation policy of the Government vide Boards letter F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.8.2011 read with Honble 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 Honble 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 Court) (Raju) Member (Technical) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) pj 1 2