Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Delhi-Iii vs 4. Amrit Enterprises on 14 July, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
COURT NO.1
E/57957/2013, ST/58396, 58461, 58463, 58470, 58474, 58475, 58480, 59120, 59125-59132, 59727, 59886, 59887/2013, ST/50297, 51471, 51472/2014
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 106/SVSW/GGN/2013 dated 19.02.2013 passed by the CCE, Delhi-III, Order-in-Appeal No. 77-126/CE/Appl/ldh/2013 dated 08.02.2013 passed by the CCE, Chandigarh-1, Order-in-Appeal No. 141-175/CE/Appl/Ldh/2013 dated 21.02.2013 passed by the CCE, Chandigarh-I, Order-in-Appeal No. 244-247/ST/Appl/Ldh/2013 dated 03.04.2013 passed by the CCE, Chandigarh-I, Order-in-Appeal No. 235-242/ST/Appl/Ldh/2013 dated 28.03.2013 passed by the CCE, Chandigarh-I , Order-in-Appeal No. 235-242/ST/Appl/Ldh/2013 dated 28.03.2013 passed by the CCE, Chandigarh-I, Order-in-Appeal No. 112/CE/D-II/2013 dated 21.05.2013 passed by the CCE, Delhi-II, Order-in-Appeal No. JAL-EXCUS-000-App-122-123-13-14 dated 03.06.2013 passed by the CCE, Chandigarh-II, Order-in-Appeal No. 442/SVS/PKL/2013 dated 19.08.2013 passed by the CCE, Chandigarh, Order-in-Appeal No. 579-582/SVS/PKL/2013 dated 25.10.2013 passed by the CCE, Delhi-III)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 14.07.2016
For Approval & signature:
Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
CCE, Delhi-III
CCE, Ludhiana
CCE, Chandigarh-II
CCE, Panchkula
Appellant
Vs.
1. Srs Diecasting Pvt.Ltd.
2. Anmol Cloth Centre
3. Avtar Enterprises
4. Amrit Enterprises
5. Travel Com
6. Jagriti Money Transfer
7. Amar Enterprises
8. Amrit Enterprises
9. Mahal Money Changer
10. Vig International
11. Vig International
12. K Tech Computers
13. Juneja Money Transfer
14. Chatha Finance Corporation
15. Laxmi Money Transfer
16. Primus Financial Services
17. Chitkara Money Changer
18. Kimberley Food Pvt. Ltd.
19. The District Commandant
20. The District Commandant
21. Reenu
22. Yashpal
23. Kirpal Singh
Respondents
Appearance Shri H. Singh, Sh. Satya pal, Sh. V.K. Tehran ARs- for the appellant Sh. Suraj Singh, Ms. Krati Somani, Advocates- for the respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member Honble Mr. Venkitkrishnan Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 60908-60930/2016 PER: ASHOK JINDAL Revenue is in appeal against the orders of Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the demand of duty was dropped respectively.
2. The Ld. AR submit that all the appeals are covered under National Litigation Policy and revenue involved is less than Rs. 10,00,000/-.
3. We are informed about the instructions dated 17.12.2015 issued by the CBEC in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 fixing monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed in the Tribunal. The monetary limit has been enhanced to Rs. 10 Lakhs through the said instructions. Further, the Board vide letter dated 1.1.2016 clarified that the said instructions will apply to all pending appeals in CESTAT.
4. We also find that the Honble High Courts of Madras, Karnataka and Gujarat have held that the litigation policy containing monetary limit for filing appeals will apply to pending appeals also. [2015 (40) STR 656 (Mad); 2014 (306) ELT (Guj); 2011 (268) ELT 344 (kar.)]
5. Considering the above position, we dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)
V. Padmanabhan Ashok Jindal
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
rt
2