Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs(Import), ... vs M/S. Viraj Alloys Ltd on 22 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. C/1072/06 [Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. 66(Gr. 7H)/2006(JNCH) dated 20/6/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II ] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) =======================================================
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 :
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(Import), Nhava Sheva :
Appellant VS M/s. Viraj Alloys Ltd :
Respondent Appearance Shri. S.J. Sahu, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants Shri. Chirag Shetty, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing: 22/9/2016 Date of decision: 22/9/2016 ORDER NO.
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in- Appeal No. 66(Gr. 7H)/2006(JNCH) dated 20/6/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. We find that amount involved in this case is not exceeding Rs.10 lakhs, hence the appeal can be disposed of on Governments litigation policy.
4. As per the Boards Circular F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17/8/2011 as amended by Circular F. No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015 on Governments litigation, the Revenue is not suppose to file appeal before this Tribunal, if the amount of duty or penalty or interest involved is not exceeding Rs. 10 lacs. However case involving the issue of classification and refund of legal and recurring nature was excluded from the litigation policy. The present case does not involve any of the aforesaid issues therefore the appeal is dismissed as per the above referred Governments litigation policy, without going into the merit of this case.
(Dictated in Court ) sk Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) 2 C/1072/06