Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise, Hyd. vs. M/S. Aurobido Pharma LTD., Medak Dist.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise (appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT order was passed in Appeal No. E1 215/2007, which arose from an order-in-original dated December 27, 2006, issued by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad. The respondent is M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Unit VII. The appeal was filed under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tax effect in this appeal was stated to be less than Rs. 2,00,00,000/-.
Held
The Court held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant, represented by the learned senior standing counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), submitted that in terms of CBIC Circular No. 3/2019, dated 06.09.2019, all appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 2,00,00,000/- are required to be withdrawn. As the value of the present appeal was less than this amount, the appellant sought permission to withdraw. The Court granted the liberty sought by the appellant and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with no costs. The question of law involved in the appeal was expressly left open. Any pending interlocutory applications were also closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellant, the Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, should be permitted to withdraw the appeal filed under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in light of CBIC Circular No. 3/2019 dated 06.09.2019? Contentions: Petitioner (Appellant): The appellant argued that CBIC Circular No. 3/2019 mandates the withdrawal of all appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. As the tax effect in the present appeal is less than this threshold, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal. They also requested liberty to file an application for restoration if it is later found that the subject matter falls within the exceptions mentioned in the circular. Revenue (Respondent): The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent.
Sections Cited
Section 35(G)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
i { IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO: 153 0F 2010 Between: The Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise' i;;ri.;i;;;;ate, tueacrral GST Bhavan, Lakdikapul' Hvderabad Medchal GST ...APPELLANT AND M/s. Aurobido Pharma Ltd., Unit Vll ( Represented Qy its Ml1agi1g Director ) Survey ii;: iilc;-,tpotairm Viit,ge, Jinriarain Mandal' trledak District' ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 35 (G) of Central Excise Act' 1944 against the order ofCustomsExciseandServiceTaxAppellateTribunal,southZonalbenchat Bangalore dated 2B-Og-2007 in Appeal No El 215 t2O07 Final Order No' ll44t2ooTpreferredagainsttheorder-in-origina|No'24t2006dahed.27.12. 2006 on the file of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise' Hyderabad - l, Central Revenue Building' L B Stadium Road' Basheerbagh' Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant: Ms' B' SAPNA REDDY (SENIOR SC FOR CBIC) Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI GANDRA MOHAN RAO The Court delivered the following Judgment :
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIC
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.