Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-I vs Sweet Industries (P) Ltd on 19 January, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV Appeal No. E/620/09-Mum [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PII/PAP/84/2009 dated 25/02/2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune-II] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes
authorities?
======================================================= Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I :
Appellant VS Sweet Industries (P) Ltd. :
Respondent Appearance Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for the Appellant J.N. Somaiya, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Date of hearing: 19/01/2016 Date of decision: 19/01/2016 ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. PII/PAP/84/2009 dated 25/02/2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune-II.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of record, we are of the view that since amount involved is Rs. 4,31,157/- which is below Rs.10 lakhs, the appeal can be disposed of on Govts litigation policy.
4. In partial modification of the Boards Circular F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015 though the monetary limit has been enhanced from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs for filing appeal before this Tribunal. But it is provided that appeal involving the classification and refund of legal and recurring nature was excluded from the litigation policy. The present case does not involve the aforesaid issues therefore the same can be disposed of on monetary limit.
5. Keeping in view the fact that the amount involved is less than Rs. 10,00,000/- and as per the litigation policy of the Government vide Boards letter F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17/08/2011 as amended by Circular dated 17.12.2015 read with Honble Gujarat High Courts judgments in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. Shreenath Fabrics reported in 2014 (303) ELT 540 (Guj.) and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-I vs. Pharmanza Herbal Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (306) ELT 153 (Guj.) and the judgment of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III vs. Presscom Products reported in 2011 (268) ELT 344 (Kar.), the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in terms of Governments litigation policy without going into the merits of the case.
(Pronounced in court) Raju Member (Technical) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) saifi 3 Appeal No. E/620/09-Mum