Commissioner vs. M/S Rashi Granite
Held
The Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was to be dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed. This decision was based on the submission by the appellant-Revenue that a subsequent notification from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) dated July 11, 2018, had raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before High Courts to Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Revenue contended that the tax effect in the present case was below this limit and did not qualify for any exceptions. The respondent-assessee did not object to this course of action. Consequently, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal without delving into the merits of the original dispute.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (appellant-Revenue) filed an appeal against an order passed by the CESTAT, Bengaluru Bench. The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Subsequently, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) issued a notification dated July 11, 2018, raising the monetary limit for filing appeals before High Courts to Rs. 50,00,000/-. The appellant-Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present case was less than this revised monetary limit and did not fall under any exception. Therefore, they sought permission to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn or not pressed. The respondent-assessee had no objection to this request.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present appeal, filed by the Revenue against an order of the CESTAT, is maintainable given the subsequent notification issued by the CBIC raising the monetary limit for filing appeals before High Courts? Contentions: Petitioner (Revenue): The present appeal is not maintainable because the tax effect involved is less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for High Court appeals, as per the CBIC's instruction dated July 11, 2018. Furthermore, the case does not fall under the exception category mentioned in the notification dated August 17, 2011. Therefore, the appeal should be permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed. Respondent (Assessee): The respondent-assessee has no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the Revenue.
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 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
C.E.A. No.18/2017
BETWEEN:
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX BANGALORE – 1, P.B.NO.5400 C.R. BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 KARNATAKA
NOW REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE 1 COMMISSIONERATE CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 …APPELLANT
(BY MR. K.M.SHIVAYOGISWAMY AND MR. SHASHIKANTHA C, CGSC)
AND:
M/S. RASHI GRANITE EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NO.117 & 118, BOMMASANDRA
Date of Judgment 01.08.2018 C.E.A.No.18/2017 Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax Vs. M/s. Rashi Granite Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
2/7
INDUSTRIAL AREA IV PHASE, HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU – 562 158 KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENT
(BY MR. B.G.CHIDANANDA, AND MR. PRAKASH D. ADVs.,)
THIS C.E.A/CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, PRAYING TO DECIDE SUBSTANTIA
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.