Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S. Mahaveer Steels Re-Rolling Mill on 1 June, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. E/317/10-MUM [Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. AGS(246) 114/09 dtd. 2/12/2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) =======================================================
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 : 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 & Customs, Aurangabad :
Appellants Vs M/s. Mahaveer Steels Re-Rolling Mill :
Respondent Appearance Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants None for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 1/6/2015
Date of decision: 1/6/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
This Appeal filed by the Revenue involving penalty of Rs. 2,85,000/- on partner of respondent firm which is less than Rs. Five Lakhs. In terms of Government Litigation Policy Vide F. No. 390/MISC/163/2010/JC dated 17/8/2011 Revenue is not supposed to file appeal against order of the Commissioner(Appeals) if amount involved is less than Rs. 5 lakhs. As regard this appeal which is filed before the issuance of litigation policy dated 17/8/2011. The Honble High Court of Karnataka judgment in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III V/s. Presscom Products [2011(268) E.L.T. 344(Kar)] and Honble High Court Gujarat judgments- Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Surat-I V/s. Shreenath Fabrics [2014 (303) E.L.T. 540(Guj)] and Commr. of C.Ex. & Cus., Vadodara-I V/s. Pharmanza Herbal Pvt. Ltd[2014(306)E.L.T. 153(Guj)] has held that the monitory limit prescribed under circular shall also be applicable in the cases which were filed prior to issuance of Litigation of policy.
2. In view of the above settled legal position the present appeal involving amount Rs. 2,85,000/- which is less than threshold limit of Rs. 5 lakhs is not maintainable and same is dismissed without going into merit of the case.
(Dictated in court) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk 2