The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs. Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals LTD
Held
The Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Courts. The instruction dated July 11, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, raised the monetary limit for High Court appeals to ₹50,00,000/-. The appellant-revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present case was below this limit and did not qualify for any exceptions. Consequently, the Court found no reason to proceed with the appeals on merits. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue below the prescribed monetary limit, without falling under any exceptions, are not maintainable. The Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed, with no costs.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Mangalore, filed two appeals (C.E.A. Nos. 15/2018 & 26/2018) before the High Court of Karnataka against an order passed by the CESTAT. The appeals concerned legacy issues related to Central Excise and Service Tax. On July 11, 2018, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) issued instructions to raise the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Courts to ₹50,00,000/-. The appellant-revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this revised monetary limit and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable before the High Court, considering the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per the CBIC's instruction dated July 11, 2018? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner (Revenue): The petitioner argued that the tax effect involved in the present appeals was less than the prescribed monetary limit of ₹50,00,000/- for High Court appeals, as per the CBIC's instruction dated July 11, 2018. They further contended that the case did not fall under any exceptions mentioned in the notification dated August 17, 2011, referenced in the instructions. Therefore, the appeals should be permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed. Respondent (Assessee): No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 35G, 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. Nos.15/2018 & 26/2018
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX MANGALORE 7TH FLOOR, TRADE CENTRE BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD MANGALORE – 575 003 …APPELLANT
(BY MR. VIKRAM ADITYA HUILGOL, SENIOR CGSC)
AND:
MANGALORE REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD. BATLA VILLAGE, KUTHETHOOR POST VIA KATIPATLA MANGALORE – 575 030
…RESPONDENT
THESE C.E.A/CENTRAL EXCISE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 35G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE
Date of Judgment 01.08.2018, C.E.A.Nos.15/2018 & 26/2018 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd.,
2/7
ACT, PRAYING TO ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW FRAMED ABOVE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER NO.22550- 22551/2017 DATED 24/10/2017 PASSED BY THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BENGALURU IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
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.