Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Macro Tech Private Ltd & ... on 23 January, 2015
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria
O/TAXAP/1934/2008 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 1934 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR
SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE....Appellant(s)
Versus
MACRO TECH PRIVATE LTD & 4....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YN RAVANI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 3 - 5
RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Page 1 of 3
O/TAXAP/1934/2008 JUDGMENT
Date : 23/01/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. We have heard Mr.Y.N.Ravani, learned advocate for the appellant. Though rule has been served on respondent Nos. 3 and 5, no one appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 5.
2. While admitting this appeal on 19.06.2009, the Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law:
"1.Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not appreciating the aspect that assembling of various components for computer is a manufacturing activity?
2. Whether the Tribunal committed error in not appreciating the aspect that assembling individual parts in the facts of the present case was manufacturing activity, which attracts duty liability under Section 11(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
3. Whether the adjudicating authority is justified in not imposing penalty on the assesseecompany under Rule173Q and on S/Shri Ramnikbhai Makwana, Director of the assessee company, Anish Shah, Proprietor of M/s. Debug, Dharmen Shah, Proprietor of M/s. CMOS and M/s. Saletag Systems under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944?"
3. By order dated 30.01.2001, the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad has imposed central excise duty of Rs.8,19,765/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00000/-, Rs.1,00000/-, Rs.50,000/-and Rs.30,000/-. The order of the Additional Commissioner has been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) by its judgment dated Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/1934/2008 JUDGMENT 11.07.2006 has dropped the proceedings initiated against all the notices under Show Cause Notice No. V.84/15-152/96 dated 25.8.1999 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad. The order was challenged by the department before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 01.8.2008 has dismissed the appeal of the department. The order of the CESTAT is challenged by the department in this tax appeal.
4. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS V. STOVEC INDUSTRIES LTD., reported in 2014(33) STR 124 (Guj) held that in view of instruction dated 17.8.2011, tax appeal below Rs. 10 lakh is not maintainable and this instruction also applies to the pending appeal. Following the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, we dismiss this tax appeal as not maintainable. Accordingly, the questions of law posed in this appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Ashish Tripathi Page 3 of 3