Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Customs Kutch ... vs Nilay Dand - Partner Rajat ... on 19 February, 2015
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria
O/TAXAP/2512/2010 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 2512 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
================================================================
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS KUTCH COMMISSIONERATE....Appellant(s)
Versus
NILAY DAND - PARTNER RAJAT LOGISTICS....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS AMEE YAJNIK, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ANAND NAINAWATI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Page 1 of 3
O/TAXAP/2512/2010 JUDGMENT
Date : 19/02/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. We have heard Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ishan Bhatt, for Mr. Anand Nainavati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee.
2. This Tax Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the CESTAT was right in allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the Commissioner while holding that the demands were barred by limitation and consequently setting aside the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty on the respondent?"
3. The respondent-assessee was imposed penalty by the Order dated 31st March, 2008. The said order was challenged by the respondent-assessee before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ["CESTAT"] who, vide its order dated 26th July, 2009 set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent-assessee. Being aggrieved by the said order of the CESTAT, the Revenue has filed this Tax Appeal before this Court.
4. The total amount of penalty involved in this Tax Appeal is below Rs. 10 Lakh.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/2512/2010 JUDGMENT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS V. STOVEC INDUSTRIES LTD., reported in 2014(33) STR 124 (Guj) held that in view of Circular dated 17.8.2011, tax appeal involving the duty amount below Rs. 10 lakh is not maintainable and this Circular also applies to the pending appeal. Following the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, we dismiss this tax appeal as not maintainable since the amount of penalty is below Rs. 10 Lakh.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) pirzada Page 3 of 3