The Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S Genting Lanco (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Aggrieved by this Order-in-Appeal, the Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur, approached the Tribunal, by way of an Appeal.

The Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur, passed orders of assessment, levying service tax on the turnovers of the respondent.

The details of the period and the orders passed by the Commissioner, Central Tax are given below:

Aggrieved by these orders, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of separate Appeals. The details of the Appeals before the Tribunal are as follows: Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Order-in-Appeal No.

The Tribunal by way of a common order, dated 10.09.2018, allowed the Appeals filed by the respondent and rejected the Appeals filed by the Revenue.

The Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur, had thereupon, filed the present Appeal against the said common order, dated 10.09.2018. 8. Heard Sri Y. N. Vivekananda, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has raised two preliminary issues, regarding the maintainability of this Appeal. Firstly, a single Appeal has been filed, against the orders passed in seven (07) Appeals, by the Tribunal and the same is not permissible as separate Appeals, would have to be filed against each of the Appeals, disposed of, by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these Appeals crossed the monetary limit, prescribed by Circular bearing No.CBIC-160390/20/2024-JC-CBEC, dated 06.08.2024, issued in August – 2024. 10. Sri Y. N. Vivekananda, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that, a single Appeal is maintainable in as much as the order, against which the Appeal has been filed is a common order. The learned Standing Counsel would also contend that, though the value of each of the Appeals, before the Tribunal was below the monetary limits, set out under the Circulars, the same would not be applicable as the aggregate of the value is far higher than the monetary limit.

In response to this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would contend that, the aggregate of the values of each of the cases, cannot be taken as the bundle marked against which the monetary limit is to be tested. The learned counsel would also contend that, the value of each proceedings should be taken separately, for the purposes of determining whether the monetary limit prescribed, under the circular, has been exceeded or not.

The Circular itself states that, any Appeal filed, by the Department, before the High Court, would have to be withdrawn, unless the monetary limit of that Appeal crosses Rs.2,00,00,000/-. In the present case, if each of the cases, before the Tribunal is taken into account, the monetary limit fixed under the Circular would not be exceeded and the Appeal would have to be dismissed, on that ground.

The question of how monetary limits are to be determined, has been explained in Instruction F. No.390/Misc/163/2010-JC, dated 26.12.2014. Instruction No.4 reads as follows:

The said instruction makes it amply clear that, the value of each of the cases, would have to be taken up separately, and these values cannot be aggregated only, on the ground that, a common order had been passed.

In that view of the matter, this Appeal would have to be dismissed.

Apart from the above, another reason for dismissing the Appeal is the fact that, a Single Appeal has been filed against the common order, disposing of seven (07) cases before the Tribunal. It is settled law that, a separate Appeal would have to be filed, in each cases, even if two or more cases have been disposed of, by way of a common order. As separate Appeals have not been filed and one (01) Appeal has been filed, the same would not be maintainable.

For all the aforesaid reasons, this Central Excise Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

2026