Principal Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise vs. Ramgarh Sponge Iron PVT LTD
Held
The Court allowed the prayer of the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the appellant's submission that they were acting in compliance with the departmental instructions dated 22.08.2019. These instructions mandated the withdrawal of appeals that were within the monetary limit of Rs. 1 Crore before the High Court, specifically for legacy matters relating to Central Excise and Service Tax, and applicable to all pending cases. The Court took on record the instruction dated 22nd August, 2019 and the letter dated 15th November, 2019 sent by the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific issue was left undecided.
Facts
The Principal Commissioner of GST, Ranchi, filed an appeal before the Jharkhand High Court against an order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had allowed the appeal of the assessee, Ramgarh Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. The appeal before the High Court was filed under Section 35G (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's counsel, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the appeal. This request was made in compliance with a directive dated 22.08.2019, which stipulated withdrawal of appeals falling within a monetary limit of Rs. 1 Crore before the High Court, applicable to legacy matters of Central Excise and Service Tax, including pending cases.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of GST, Ranchi, should be permitted to withdraw the appeal filed against the CESTAT order dated 30.08.2017, in light of the departmental instructions regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The appellant (Principal Commissioner of GST) argued that they are seeking to withdraw the appeal as per the instructions issued by the department vide F.No. 390/Misc./116/17-JC dated 22.08.2019. They stated that the present appeal falls within the monetary limit of Rs. 1 Crore, and the instructions are applicable to legacy matters of Central Excise and Service Tax, including all pending cases. The respondent (Ramgarh Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.) did not record any arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 35G (1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI T.A. No. 51 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of GST ---
---
Appellant Versus Ramgarh Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.
….
Respondent --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Through Video Conferencing --- For the Appellant : M/s. Ratnesh Kumar, Amit Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent : ----
04/09.07.2020 The present appeal under Section 35 G (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is directed against the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata in Appeal No. C/76135/2016, whereby learned CESTAT has been pleased to allow
the appeal of the Assessee. However, there were certain defects also surviving in the instant appeal.
Learned counsel Mr. Ratnesh Kumar assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner on record appears through Video Conferencing on behalf of Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi and submits on the basis of written instruction contained in letter no. 9599 dated 15th November, 201
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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.