Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Salem vs M/S. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation on 30 September, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. ST/41386/2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.78/2014-ST dated 27.2.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem)
CCE, Salem Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Respondent
Appearance Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri P. Mahalingam, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 30.09.2015 Final Order No. 41333 / 2015 Revenue has come in appeal with the precise submission that Commissioner (Appeals) should not have dismissed the appeal of Revenue holding that its appeal was belatedly filed beyond the limitation prescribed by section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. The submission of Revenue is acceptable for the reason that the date on which the adjudicating authority has passed order, within three months thereof Revenue has obtained order of Reviewing Authority and come in appeal in accordance with sanction of law under sub-section (2) and (3) of section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, following the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of CCE, Delhi III Vs. M/s. Kap Cones 2015-TIOL-149-SC-CX, Revenue succeeds on limitation.
3. As far as merit of the appeal is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel that according to the norm laid by Ministry of Finance, the department should not file appeal when the demand is below Rs.5 lakhs. Secondly, it is also submission of the respondents that the services were integrally connected with export of tea.
4. Perusal of the adjudication order shows that learned adjudicating authority while sanctioning refund of Rs.36,644/- has thoroughly examined the liability aspect of the respondent and also relevancy of the input services which was CHA and terminal handling charges suffering service tax. He held that such services were integrally connected with the export. He has also examined the documents furnished before him in support of claim of refund.
5. When an elaborate order has been passed by the learned adjudicating authority, interference to the order of that authority is undesirable on merit and unproductive for the Tribunal for which Revenue appeal is dismissed. Also dismissal is desirable on the count of pecuniary limit prescribed for the appeal by the Board to reduce the dispute without repetitive litigation in appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2