Dismissed

Mangalore-cus v. Mohiudeen Saw Mills

CESTAT23 Aug 2024C/20989/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Customs Appeals Nos. 20989 to 20992 of 2017, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals because the total amount involved (Rs. 1.49 lakhs) fell below the monetary threshold specified in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs Litigation Policy Circular dated 02.11.2023.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed due to the amount involved being below the exclusion limit in the CBIC Litigation Policy Circular.

Mangalore-cus vs Mohiudeen Saw Mills — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2024)

¶1

C/20989 to 20992/2017

¶2

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE

¶3

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1

¶4

Customs Appeal No. 20989 of 2017

¶5

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.69 to 72/2017 dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Bangalore)

¶6

Commissioner of Customs,

¶7

New Customs House, Panambur, Mangaluru.

¶8

Appellant(s)

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Mohiudeen Saw Mills,

¶11

Thumbay, Mangaluru – 574 170.

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

WITH

¶14

i. Customs Appeal No. 20990 of 2017 (Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mohiudeen Saw Mills)

¶15

ii. Customs Appeal No. 20991 of 2017 (Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mohiudeen Saw Mills)

¶16

iii. Customs Appeal No. 20992 of 2017 (Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mohiudeen Saw Mills)

¶17

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.69 to 72/2017 dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Bangalore)

¶18

APPEARANCE:

¶19

Mr. Maneesh Akhoury, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the appellant

¶20

Ms. Rukmani Menon, Advocate for the Respondent

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MRS R BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶22

Final Order No. 20699-20702 /2024

¶23

DATE OF HEARING: 22.08.2024 DATE OF DECISION: 22.08.2024

¶24

Page 1 of 2

¶25

C/20989 to 20992/2017

¶26

PER : DR. D.M. MISRA

¶27

The Revenue has filed the present appeal challenging the Order-in-Appeal No.69 to 72/2017 dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Bangalore)

¶28

After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the total amount involved in the present appeals filed by the Revenue is around Rs.1.49 lakhs and not covered under the exclusion clause of the Litigation Policy Circular/Instruction F.No.390/Misc./30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs. Without entering into the merits of the case, the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed in view of the above Circular dated 02.11.2023.

¶29

(Order dictated in open court)

¶30

(D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶31

(R BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶32

Raja…

¶33

Page 2 of 2

Mangalore-cus v. Mohiudeen Saw Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangalore-cus v. Mohiudeen Saw Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tiruchirapalli vs Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Mangalore-cus

Tiruchirapalli vs Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.

Tiruchirapalli vs Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.

Mangalore-cus vs Mohiudeen Saw Mills

Sri Ganesh Diamonds Jewellery vs Bangalore-I

Sri Ganesh Diamonds Jewellery vs Bangalore-I

Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Principal Commissioner Customs Bangalore