Dismissed

The Commissioner of Customs v. M/S.Manian Bricks

Madras HC22 Nov 2019CMA(MD)/397/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by the Revenue challenged the Tribunal's order granting concessional Counter Veiling Duty. The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal not on merits but due to low tax effect and because the case falls under specific Central Board instructions, leaving the legal question open.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect; the substantial question of law is held open.

The Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S.Manian Bricks — Customs and Excise | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.M.A(MD).No.396 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI C.M.A(MD).No.397 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD).No.4771 of 2019

¶4

The Commissioner of Customs Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin-628 004.

¶5

... Appellant/Respondent

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Manian Bricks, No.28, Thaziapuram Street, Vadasery, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari-629 001.

¶8

... Respondent/Appellant

¶9

Prayer : Appeal is filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, to consider the above appeal and set aside the impugned order of the CESTAT in common final order No.40271-40292/2018 dated 31.01.2018.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Jayaraj

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

(Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J .)

¶13

We have heard Mr.B.Vijaykarthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Mr.A.K.Jayaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

¶14

2.The appeal by the Revenue is directed against the common order passed by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for the sake of brevity), dated 31.01.2018. The appeal has been filed raising the following substantial question of law:

¶15

'Whether the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is correct in allowing the benefit of concessional rate of counter Veiling Duty (CVD) on the imports wherein the importers have failed to fulfil the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/2

¶17

C.M.A(MD).No.396 of 2019

¶18

conditions stipulated in the Notification No.4/2006-CE as amended and also when such imports by the importers are in contrary to the conditions stipulated in the Notification No.4/2006-CE as amended?'

¶19

It may not be necessary for us to adjudicate the correctness of the order of the Tribunal. In the light of the fact that the appeal filed by the revenue is hit by the instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, in File No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC, dated 17.12.2015.

¶20

In the light of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, the substantial question of law is left open.

¶21

In the event, the appellant revenue is of the opinion that the case will not fall within the instructions given by the Central Board, liberty is granted to the appellant to seek for restoration of this appeal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

rmk

¶24

+1 CC to M/s.B.VIJAY KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-100719[F] dated 22/11/2019 )

¶25

+1 CC to M/s.AK. JAYARAJ, Advocate ( SR-101565[F] dated 26/11/2019 )

¶26

ma(CO) TR(19.12.2019)2P 3C

¶27

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