Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Jeans Knit (Pvt Ltd) on 12 February, 2014

Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale, B.Manohar

                              1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

   DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014

                      PRESENT

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE

                         AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

 CEA NO.37 OF 2012 AND CEA NOS.8 TO 26 OF 2014


BETWEEN :

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
EXCISE, BANGALORE-II
COMMISSIONERATE
P.B.NO.5400, QUEEN'S ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001                   ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, ADV.)

AND :

M/s. JEANS KNIT (PVT. LTD.)
NO.21-E1, 2ND PHASE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BANGALORE - 560 058                ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.N.ANAND, ADV. FOR SRI.RAVI SHANKAR, ADV.)
                          ---

      These CEAs are filed under Section 35G of the
Central Excise Act, 1944 arising out of the order dated
29.11.2010 passed in Final Order No.1459 to
1478/2010 praying to decide the questions of law stated
therein and etc.
                              2




      These appeals coming on for Further Orders this
day, DILIP B.BHOSALE J., delivered the following:

                        ORDER

Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

2. At the outset, Mr.N.Anand, learned Advocate for respondent invited our attention to Instruction F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.8.2011 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, Government of India under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to submit that since the refund amount involved in these appeals is less than the monetary limit prescribed under the aforementioned Instruction, which is `10,00,000/- insofar as High Court is concerned, these appeals are not maintainable.

3. Having confronted with this, Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned Advocate for the appellant could not 3 and did not dispute the submission advanced by the learned Advocate for the respondent.

4. In view thereof and considering the aforementioned Instruction issued by the Government of India dated 17.8.2011 under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, we dismiss these appeals as not maintainable.

5. In view of the dismissal of the appeals, application for condonation of delay also stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE RV