Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Dreamland Dyes Pvt. Ltd on 5 December, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/89757/14 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PD/Th-I/46-48/2014 dt.27.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai-I ) For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri 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, Thane-I :
Appellant VS M/s. Dreamland Dyes Pvt. Ltd. :
Respondent Appearance Shri V. K. Shastri, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for Appellant None for respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 05/12/2016 Date of decision : 05/12/2016 ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Orders-in- Appeal No. PD/Th-I/46-48/2014 dt.27.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai-I.
2. Heard the Learned A.R. and perused the records.
3. We find that amount involved in this case is not exceeding Rs.10 lakhs, hence the appeal can be disposed of on Governments litigation policy.
4. As per the Boards Circular F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17/8/2011 as amended by Circular F. No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015 on Governments litigation, the Revenue is not suppose to file appeal before this Tribunal, if the amount of duty or penalty or interest involved is not exceeding Rs. 10 lacs. However case involving the issue of classification and refund of legal and recurring nature was excluded from the litigation policy. The present case does not involve any of the aforesaid issues therefore the appeal is dismissed as per the above referred Governments litigation policy, without going into the merit of this case.
(Pronounced in court ) (Raju) Member (Technical) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) SM.
2Appeal No. E/89757/14