Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Central Excise & Customs vs Rachna Arts Prints Private ... on 23 January, 2015
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria
O/TAXAP/1338/2008 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 1338 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 CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS....Appellant(s)
Versus
RACHNA ARTS PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YN RAVANI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR A GUPTA, ADVOCATE for MR DHAVAL SHAH, ADVOCATE for the
Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Page 1 of 3
O/TAXAP/1338/2008 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 and Mr.A Gupta, learned advocate for Mr.Dhaval Shah, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. While admitting this appeal on 17.04.2009, the Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law:
"(1) Whether the job workers can escape the liability to pay duty on correct valuation of grey fabrics in view of the undertaking given by them under Notification NO.27/92CE (NT)?
(2) Whether the Tribunal committed error in not appreciating he aspect that misdeclaration of value of grey fabrics by 'grey fabric supplier' with knowledge of the job worker extends the period of limitation invoked against the job workers?
(3) Whether the Tribunal committed error in not appreciating larger Bench's decision reported in 2002 (53) RLT 66 (CEGATLB) on wrong foundation that the decision of the Tribunal is of September 2002 while the period involved in the case is from April 1997 to March 1998 though the same law was applicable during both the period?
3. The custom duty to the tune of Rs.18,249/- was imposed on the assessee by the Joint Commissioner, which was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, the CESTAT has allowed the appeal and set aside amount of custom duty. The order of the CESTAT is challenged by the department in this tax appeal. The custom duty involved in this Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/1338/2008 JUDGMENT appeal is Rs.18,249/- which is much below Rs.10 lakhs.
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