The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S. Oil Country Tubular PVT. LTD.
Facts
The appellant, M/s. Oil Country Tubular Pvt Ltd, filed an appeal before the High Court against the Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appeal was preferred against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) had issued a circular on August 6, 2024, enhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before various appellate authorities, including the High Court. The monetary limit for filing an appeal before the High Court was fixed at Rs. 2.00 crore. The judgment notes that the tax effect in the instant appeal was well below this monetary limit.
Held
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable as the tax effect was well below the monetary limit of Rs. 2.00 crore stipulated by the CBIC Circular No. CBIC_160390/20/2024-JC_CBEC dated 06.08.2024. This circular was issued to reduce litigation by enhancing monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in terms of the aforesaid circular. The Court also noted that if the appeal falls within any exception to the circular, the appellant would be at liberty 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_CBEC dated 06.08.2024? Arguments for the Appellant: The appellant, represented by learned Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the appeal based on the circular. The judgment implies the appellant is the one filing the appeal against the CESTAT order. Arguments for the Respondent (Revenue): The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. However, the court's decision is based on the application of the CBIC circular.
Sections Cited
Section 35G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ll I I I I i I t IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUE AY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF IVIARCH '- TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HoNouRABLE sRl lusrrCi tlanslNc RAo NANDIKoNDA CENTRAL EXCISE APPEALS NO: 20F 2025 Appeal under Section 35G of Central Excise Act' 1944 as substituted by the Finance Act, 2003 against the Final Order No. A|3O273-3O27712024- EX dated 08-04-2024 passed in Appeal No El3}447l2o16 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-039- '15-16-CE, Dated 29-03-2016 on the file of the Commissioner of Central Tax' Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate' Hyderabad' Between: IiE i',:?f1[3'.::ffi:ii:tf,fl.,c;?53|.;[11 ?3;f,]fl]"r;s13'.1 " 7 t 43 vtP ...APPELLANT tvl/s. oil Country Tubular Pvt Ltd, Sreepuram, Narketpally, Nalgonda District' AND Telangana .-RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI' K' PRASHANTH (SC for CBIC) Counsel for the ResPondent: The Court Delivered the following Judgment:
IED. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHII' AND THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNGRAONANDIKONDA TRAL Ilto.2 oF 202s
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.