Dismissed

Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. the Commissioner Thiruvannamalai Municipality

Madras HC18 Nov 2019CMA/4079/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, the Revenue sought to challenge a Tribunal order. However, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limit mandated by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Vs the… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.11.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4079 of 2019

¶6

Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer, No.2054-I, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.

¶7

¶8

The Commissioner, Thiruvannamalai Municipality, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai 606 601. Tamil Nadu. .. Respondent

¶9

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994, against the Common Final Order No.42135 of 2018 dated 19.7.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 19.7.2018, by raising the following substantial questions of law:

¶12

“i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in disposing off the appeals merely for the purpose of statistics?

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has fallen in error in disregarding the provisions of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944?”

¶15

When the matter is taken up for Admission, the learned Senior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Instruction issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 22^nd August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/(Rupees One Crore).

¶16

In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and, therefore, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

ssk. To:

¶21

The Registrar, Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

¶22

Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer, No.2054-I, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.

¶23

The Commissioner, Thiruvannamalai Municipality, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai 606 601. Tamil Nadu.

¶24

+2ccs to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar , Advocate SR.No. 94857.96302 C.M.A.No.4079 of 2019 A.SK(08/01/2020)

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. the Commissioner Thiruvannamalai Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. the Commissioner Thiruvannamalai Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Asst. Commissioner (Ct) Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd.

M/S Bharat Logistics Solutions Vs Commissioner of Customs

The Commissioner of Central Vs Sri Amirtha Sago Industries

M/s.Saptagiri Milk Products Vs Union of India

Dr.S.sampathkumar Vs The Assistant General Manager

Nainar K Makdoom, Vs The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal