The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S. Oil Country Tubular PVT LTD
Facts
The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Bhavan, Hyderabad (appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad. The CESTAT's order was in appeal against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate. The respondent is M/s. Oil Country Tubular Pvt Ltd. The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant relied on a circular issued by the CBIC dated August 6, 2024, which enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department to reduce litigation. This circular fixed the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court at Rs. 2.00 crore.
Held
The Court held that the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The reasoning is based on the appellant's own submission regarding the CBIC Circular No. CBIC-160390/20/2024-JC dated 06.08.2024, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 2.00 crore for filing appeals before the High Court. The Court noted that the tax effect in the instant appeal was well below this limit. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Department before the High Court, where the tax effect is below the stipulated monetary limit in the relevant CBIC circular, are liable to be dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. The Court also noted that if the appeal comes within the exception of the said Circular, it would be open to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant is maintainable before the High Court in light of the monetary limit prescribed by the CBIC Circular No. CBIC-160390/20/2024-JC dated 06.08.2024? The appellant argued that the appeal should be dismissed as the tax effect is well below the monetary limit of Rs. 2.00 crore stipulated in the aforementioned circular. The appellant relied on the said circular as a measure for reducing litigation. The revenue (appellant in this case) did not present any arguments against this contention, as the appeal was being dismissed based on their own submission regarding the circular.
Sections Cited
Section 35G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUE AY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CENTRAL EXCISE APPEALS NO: 3 OF 2025 Appeal under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1g44 as substituted by the Finance Act, 2003 against the Final order No At3ozl3-3027712024 daled 08-04-2024 passed in Appeat No. E/3'l 151t2O17 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench, Hyderabad preferred against the order-in-appeal No. HYD-CEX-003 -App-032-17-18, Dated 31-07-2017 on the file of the Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST C om m iss io n e rate, Hyderabad. Between: The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Bhavan, H.No.1-9g t 7 I 43, Vlp Hills. Jaihind Enclave, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana - 5OO Og.l . ...APPELLANT AND M/s. Oil Country Tubular Pvt Ltd, Sreepuram, Narketpaily, Nalgonda District, Telangana. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. K. PRASHANTH (SC for CBIC) Counsel for the Respondent: The Court Delivered the following Judgment:
THE HON'BLE SRI JuSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI
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 Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.