The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs. M/S Mahak Commercial PVT. LTD.

CEA/16/2017HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01050359201714 August 2018Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI6 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The instruction dated July 11, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before High Courts to Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Revenue's counsel stated that the tax effect in the present case was below this limit and did not qualify for any exceptions. Consequently, the Court permitted the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore (Appellant) filed an appeal against an order dated December 21, 2016, passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore. The appeal sought to set aside the CESTAT's order and restore an earlier order dated May 2, 2014, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Mangalore. The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue's counsel submitted that a notification dated July 11, 2018, from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before High Courts to Rs. 50,00,000/-. The counsel stated that the tax effect in the present case was less than this limit and did not fall under any exception. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable in light of the revised monetary limits for filing appeals before High Courts as per the CBIC's instruction dated July 11, 2018? (Question of law) The Revenue argued that the appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect involved was less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for High Court appeals, and the case did not fall under the exception category mentioned in the notification dated August 17, 2011. The Revenue requested permission to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn or not pressed. The Respondent (M/s. Mahak Commercial Pvt. Ltd.) 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

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

1/6 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.16 OF 2017 BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MANGALORE …APPELLANT (BY MR.VIKRAM A HUILGOL, ADV.) AND: M/S. MAHAK COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., BAIKAMPADY, MANGALORE. …RESPONDENT ((BY SRI.G.SHIVADASS, ADV.) THIS C.E.A/CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21/12/2016 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER NO.21440/2016 WITH A PRAYER TO (a) SET ASIDE FINAL ORDER NO.21440/2016, DATED 21.12.2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CESTAT SOUTH ZONE BENCH, BANGALORE IN ANNEXURE-D AND BY RESTORING THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO.12/2014-15 DATED 02.05.2014 Date of Judgment 14.08.2018, C.E.A.No.16/2017 The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Mahak Commercial Pvt. Ltd., 2/6 PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALORE PRODUCED ANNEXURE-B. (b) TO PASS SUCH OTHER

AS DEEMED FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING AN ORDER FOR COST MAY BE PASSED IN THE INT

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.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

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.