Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S.Venkateshwara Power Projects
Held
The Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) on 22.08.2019, which stipulated a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for filing appeals before the High Courts. The Court found that the monetary limit involved in the present case was less than this prescribed threshold. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by revenue before High Courts must adhere to the stipulated monetary limits set by the CBIC to be considered maintainable. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central Tax, GST and Central Excise (the Appellant) filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against an order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appeal was filed to challenge the CESTAT's order and to formulate substantial questions of law. The Respondent, M/s. Venkateshwara Power Projects Ltd., submitted that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limit prescribed by instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC). The CBIC instructions, dated 22.08.2019, fixed monetary limits for filing appeals before various forums, including High Courts.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Appellant is maintainable before the High Court in light of the monetary limits prescribed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) instructions dated 22.08.2019? The Appellant contended that the appeal was filed to challenge the CESTAT order and to seek a decision on substantial questions of law. The Respondent argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the amount in dispute was below the monetary threshold of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- fixed for High Court appeals by the CBIC instructions, which were issued under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Sections Cited
Section 35G, Section 35R, Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
CEA No.100003/2019
BETWEEN:
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE NO.71 CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.N.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. VENKATESHWARA POWER PROJECTS LTD., BEDKIHAL, TALUK, CHIKODI DISTRICT BELAGAVI 591 201. ... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED.)
THIS CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL FILED UNDER SEC. 35 G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT 1944 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND DECIDE THE SAME AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDE DATED 13.11.2018 MADE IN APPEAL NO.E/20986/2018 ON THE FILE OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND TO GRANT ANY OTHER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
2 THIS CEA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under
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.