Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central v. Customs, Excise & Gold

Madras HC7 Jan 2021RC/1/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a referred case by the Revenue against an appellate tribunal order due to low tax effect compared to a new threshold set by a Central Board circular. The substantive legal question on retrospective clarity of a notification was left undecided.

What did the court decide?

Referred case dismissed on ground of low tax effect; substantial question of law left open with liberty to file for restoration if tax effect exceeds threshold.

The Commissioner of Central Vs Customs, Excise & Gold — Income Tax | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 07.1.2021

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

and

¶6

The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA

¶7

Referred Case No.1 of 2008

¶8

The Commissioner of Central Excise
Coimbatore ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Customs, Excise & Gold
(Control) Appellate Tribunal,
South Zonal Bench, Chennai.
2.M/s.The Associated Cement Co.
Ltd. ...Respondents
REFERRED CASE under Section 35H(4) of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 against Final Order No.650/1998 dated 26.3.1998 on
the file of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate
Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, SSC Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J

¶10

We have heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

This referred case by the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which decided the issue in favour of the assessee.

¶12

The referred case was filed by the Revenue by raising the following substantial question of law :

¶13

“Whether Notification No.14/96-CE (NT) dated 23.7.1996, which amended the definition of capital goods in Explanation 1A of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was only clarificatory in nature and can have retrospective effect?”

¶14

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

¶15

The Revenue seeks to withdraw the case on account of low tax effect in terms of the circular dated 22.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing any matter before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit.

¶16

In the light of the above, the referred case is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect and the substantial question of law raised is left open. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to file a petition before this Court to restore the matter to be heard and decided on merits.

¶17

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CCC)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
RS
To
The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,
South Zonal Bench, Chennai.
+1 cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas Sr Standing Counsel sr973
R.C.No.1 of 2008
ad(co)
aa10/02/2021

¶18

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

The Commissioner of Central v. Customs, Excise & Gold

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Central v. Customs, Excise & Gold

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 Commissioner Vs Customs

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt.Rakhee Jain

Principal Commissioner of Vs Indowind Energy Ltd.

The Anjuman-E-Himayat-E-Islam Vs the Assistant Director of Income Tax

M/S Virgo Properties P Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Vs the Customs