Dismissed

Hyderabad-Iv v. Sree Sai Teja Engineering Works

CESTAT8 Nov 2018E/20184/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed multiple appeals filed by the revenue against impugned orders. Finding the amounts involved were less than Rs. 20 lakhs, the Tribunal held these appeals did not merit further consideration under the Central Government s new litigation policy.

What did the court decide?

All appeals dismissed as the amounts involved are less than Rs. 20 lakhs under the new litigation policy.

Hyderabad-Iv vs Sree Sai Teja Engineering Works — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2018)

¶1

(1)

¶2

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD

¶3

Division Bench

¶4

Court – I

¶5

Appeal No.	Appellant(s)	Respondent(s)	Impugned Order
E/20184/2014	CCCE, Hyderabad-IV	Sree Sai Teja Engineering Works	OIA: 78/2013 (H-IV) CE dt.25.09.2013
E/20399/2014	-do-	Sri Krishna Industries	OIA: 03/2012 (H-IV) CE dt.25.09.2013
E/20629/2015	CCCE & ST, Nellore	Pinakini Beverages Pvt Ltd	OIA: 03 to 06/2014 (N) CE dt.26.12.2014
E/20631/2015	CCCE & ST, Guntur	Bisleri International Pvt Ltd	OIA: 03 to 06/2014 (N) CE dt.17.12.2014
E/20818/2015	-do-	Kadeer Khan, Director Bisleri International Pvt Ltd	-do-
E/20819/2015	-do-	Sk Motani, Director Bisleri International Pvt Ltd	-do-
E/21324/2014	CCCE & ST, Guntur	Crane Beetel Nut Power Works	OIO: 90/2013 (G) CE dt.23.12.2013
E/22058/2015	-do-	Wanury Ltd	OIA: GUN-EXCUS- 000-APP-057-15-16 dt.08.07.2015
E/25067/2013	CCCE, Visakhapatnam-II	KPR Fertilizers Ltd	OIA: 10/2012 (V-II) CE dt.03.10.2012
ST/20621/2014	CCCE & ST, Guntur	Vijay Spinning Mills Ltd	OIA: GUN-EXCUS- 000-APP-052-13-14 dt.21.08.2013
ST/21685/2014	CCCE, Visakhapatnam-I	Rajyalakshmi Builders	OIA: 07/2014 (V-I) ST dt.23.1.2014
ST/21869/2015	-do-	Jayalakshmi Automotives Pvt Ltd	OIA: VIZ-EXCUS-002- APP-0006-15-16 dt.28.04.2015
ST/22028/2015	CCCE & ST, Guntur	Smt Syamala Devi	OIA: GUN-EXCUS- 000-APP-061-15-16 dt.13.07.2015
ST/22029/2015	-do-	Sri P.V. Venkateswara Rao	OIA: GUN-EXCUS- 000-APP-059-15-16 dt.13.07.2015
ST/22030/2015	-do-	-do-	OIA: GUN-EXCUS- 000-APP-062-15-16 dt.13.07.2015
ST/23624/2014	CCCE, Visakhapatnam-I	Calcutta Shipping & Marine Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd	OIA: 42/2014 (V-I) ST dt.30.07.2014
ST/25010/2013	CCCE, Visakhapatnam-II	Ankapalli Municipality	Review Order: 26/2012 (CoC) dt.12.12.2012
ST/25034/2013	CCE & ST, Tirupati	K. Chandrasekhar, Prop. of Devi Function Palace	OIA: 60/2012 (T) ST dt.11.09.2012
ST/26158/2013	CCCE, Hyderabad-III	National Geophysical Research Institute	OIA: 24/2012 (H-III) ST dt.14.12.2012
ST/27147/2013	CCCE & ST, Hyderabad-II	Great India Mining Pvt Ltd	OIA: 09/2012 (H-II) (D) ST dt.24.12.2012
ST/27616/2013	CCCE & ST, Hyderabad-I	Sri T Kamal Reddy Labour Contractor	OIA: 10/2013(H-I) ST dt.23.05.2013
ST/27923/2013	CCCE, Hyderabad-IV	Elite Engineering & Constructions	OIA: 77/2013 (H-IV) ST dt.01.07.2013

¶6

Appearance Shri B. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent/AR for the Appellant. None for the Respondent.

¶7

(2)

¶8

Coram:

¶9

HON'BLE Mr. M.V.Ravindran, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶10

Date of Hearing: 08.11.2018 Date of Decision: 08.11.2018

¶11

FINAL ORDER No. A/31514-31535/2018

¶12

[Order per: Bench.]

¶13

All these appeals are filed by the revenue against respective impugned orders.

¶14

On perusal of records, we find that the amounts involved in all these appeals are less than Rs.20 lakhs. As per the new litigation policy of the Central Government of India, these appeals do not merit any further consideration and are dismissed so leaving the issue open.

¶15

Appeals are dismissed as per the new litigation policy as the amount is less than Rs.20 lakhs.

¶16

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

¶17

(P.VENKATA SUBBA RAO) (M.V. RAVINDRAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶18

Veda

Hyderabad-Iv v. Sree Sai Teja Engineering Works

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hyderabad-Iv v. Sree Sai Teja Engineering Works

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Toshiba Machine Chennai Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai outer)

Concrete Udyog Ltd. vs Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai outer)

Delphi Tvs Diesel Systems Ltd. vs Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai outer)

Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs Udaipur

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Surat-i

Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. vs Bhavnagar

Madhu Silica Pvt. Ltd. vs Bhavnagar

Demosha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs Surat-i