The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Apotex Pharmacehem INDIA PVT LTD
Held
The Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable due to the tax effect being less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for High Court appeals, as per the instructions dated 11.07.2018. The Court noted that the appellant-Revenue themselves submitted that the present case does not fall under the exception category. Consequently, the Court permitted the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed.
Facts
The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore I Commissionerate, filed an appeal against an order passed by the CESTAT. The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The appellant sought to set aside the CESTAT's Final Order No. 21134-21136/2016 dated 15.11.2016 and restore the orders in original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. The respondent is M/s. Apotex Pharmacehem India Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was filed prior to July 11, 2018. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (Judicial Cell) issued instructions on July 11, 2018, raising the monetary limit for filing appeals before High Courts to Rs. 50,00,000/- for legacy issues.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable in light of the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before High Courts, as per the instructions dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs? The appellant-Revenue argued that the appeal is not maintainable because the tax effect involved is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. They further contended that the case does not fall under any exceptions mentioned in the notification dated 17.08.2011, which was referred to in the instructions dated 11.07.2018. Therefore, the appellant sought permission to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn or not pressed. The respondent did not record any arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 35G, Section 35R, Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
C.E.A. No.14 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE I COMMISSIONERATE CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT
(BY SMT.NAGASHREE AND SMT.M.R.VANAJA, ADVS.)
AND:
M/S. APOTEX PHARMACEHEM INDIA PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.1A, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, 4TH PHASE BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE JIGANI LINK ROAD BANGALORE – 560 099. …RESPONDENT
THIS C.E.A/CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 15/11/2016 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21334-21136/2016 WITH A PRAYER TO Date of Judgment 14.08.2018, C.E.A.No.14/2017 The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Apotex Pharmacehem India Pvt.Ltd.,
2/7
(a) SET ASIDE CESTAT’S FINAL ORDER NO.21134- 21136/2016 DATED 15.11.2016 VIDE (ANNEXURE-C) AND BY RESTORING THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NOS.365/11, 18.11.2011 (ANNEXURE-A1), 425/2011,
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.