Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, Vijayawada vs M/S Arani Agro Oil Industries Ltd on 16 August, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Division Bench Court I Application No. C/MISC/30358/2016 Appeal No. C/15/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 58/2008 (V-II) Cus dt. 23.09.2008 passed by CCE, C (Appeals), Visakhapatnam) For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Honble Sh. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? CC, Vijayawada ..Appellant(s) Vs. M/s Arani Agro Oil Industries Ltd., ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Sh. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Appellant.
Sh. G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Honble Sh. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Date of Hearing: 16.08.2016 Date of Decision: 16.08.2016 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar] The appeal relates to dispute on acid value of imported crude palm oil.
2. The differential duty involved is Rs.9,48,133/- confirmed by original authority along with interest thereof. The Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order set aside the same. Revenue is therefore in appeal before us.
3. We find that the amount involved in dispute is well below the threshold limit of Rs. 10 lakhs prescribed by CBEC in its instructions dated 17.12.2015, in exercise of powers under Section 35 R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to Customs Act, 1962 for filing appeals before the Tribunal. It is further noted that the issue involved in this appeal is not concerned with the exclusions listed in the said CBEC letter viz- constitutional validity of provisions of an Act /Rule, or where notification/instruction/order/circular has been held illegal or ultra vires or classification/refund issues which are of legal and/or recurring nature. In the case of CCE, & Cus, Aurangabad vs Himalaya Tyres [2016 (42) STR 906 (Tri-Mum)] it has held that if appeal is not covered by exclusions not mentioned in the circular, the Tribunal is obliged to dismiss such cases taking cognizance of tax amount. The relevant portion of said order is extracted below:
Copy para of judgment
4. In view of the above and keeping in mind the litigation policy of the Government, we dismiss the appeal filed by department as the amount involved is less than Rs.10 lakhs.
(Operative part of this order was pronounced in court
on conclusion of the hearing)
(MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.)
MEMBER(TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
Jaya.
2