Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Kundalia Ceramic Pvt. Limited on 22 March, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/11637/2013 (Arising out of OIA-65-2013-RAJ-CE-AK-COMMR-A-AHD dated 26.02.2013, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Rajkot) Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Rajkot : Appellant (s) VERSUS M/s. Kundalia Ceramic Pvt. Limited : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Lalatendu Patra, Authorised Representative. For Respondent (s) : None For approval and signature :
Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble 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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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 Departmental authorities? Yes CORAM :
Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 22.03.2016 ORDER No. A/10203/2016 Dated 22.03.2016 Per : Mr. P.M. Saleem None appears for the Respondents. Heard the learned Authorised Representative for Revenue.
2. This is a Revenue appeal. Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue, at the outset, submits that they wish to withdraw the appeal in view of the instructions of CBEC vide Circular No 390/Misc/163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015 read with instructions of even No dated 17.8.2011, wherein a monetary limit of Rs 10 lakhs has been prescribed for filing appeal in the Tribunal. He submits that the amount in dispute in the present appeal is below the said monetary limit and therefore, Revenue wishes to withdraw the appeal. He further submits that the CBEC has clarified that the new threshold limit would be applicable to all the pending appeals in CESTAT vide CBEC Circular No. 390/Misc/163/2010-JC dated 01.1.2016. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has no objection to Revenue withdrawing the appeal.
3. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (P.M. Saleem) Member (Technical) .KL 2