Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd on 22 April, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No . 20599 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: E/212/2009-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 27 & 28/2008 dated 07/07/2008 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-I), Hyderabad] Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - HYDERABAD-I KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN, L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD-500004 Appellant(s) Versus M/s SIRPUR PAPER MILLS LTD SIRPUR, KAGAZANAGAR, A.P. - 504296 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. R. Gurunathan, A.R. For the Appellant None For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 22/04/2014 Date of Decision: 22/04/2014 Per B.S.V. MURTHY In this case, the Orders-in-Appeal dealt with two appeals against two Orders-in-Original and the Orders-in-Appeal was also numbered as 27 & 28/2008. However, only one appeal has been filed by Revenue. In the normal course, in such a situation, a defect memo to be issued and second appeal could be filed and subsequently, if there is delay in filing the second appeal, such delay is condoned. However, in this case, it is noticed that in the first appeal, the amount involved is Rs. 2,74,576/- and in the second appeal, the amount involved is Rs. 3,28,466/-. In any case, there are two orders-in-appeal and they cannot be considered as one order. Even if two appeals have been filed by Revenue against the impugned orders-in-appeal, both the appeals should be rejected in view of the amount involved in each case is less than Rs. 5 lakhs.
2. Even though this appeal was filed prior to issue of the Boards Circular prescribing mandatory limits for filing the appeal by Revenue, in the light of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Ranka & Ranka reported in 2012 (284) E.L.T. 185 (Kar.)], we have to hold that the appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/