Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd on 2 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPLICATION No. E/MA(Ors)/92383/16-Mum APPEAL No. E/240/07-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AT/770 & 771/Bel/2006 dated 8.12.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) and 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 :
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 Central Excise, Belapur Appellant Vs. I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd. Respondent Appearance:
Shri V.K. Shastri, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for appellant None for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 2.3.2016 Date of Decision: 2.3.2016 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Garg The Revenue is appellant in the present case and they have moved an application alleging that in order to reduce the Government litigation, the CBEC, New Delhi, has fixed the monetary limit of Rs.10 lakhs, below which appeal should not be filed by the department before the CESTAT. Instruction F.No. 390/Misc/163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015 has been issued in this regard and further, this enhanced monetary limit shall apply to all pending appeals as clarified vide Instruction F.No. 390/Misc/163/2010-JC dated 1.1.2016 and copies of both the instructions are also annexed with the application.
2. In the present appeal, the disputed amount is Rs.8,99,514/- which is below the enhanced monetary limit.
3. In view of the above instructions, the learned AR has prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. Ordered accordingly. The present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Pronounced in Court) (Raju) Member (Technical) (S.S. Garg) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 2