Dismissed

Commissioner of Customs and v. Aquasub Engineering

Madras HC17 Feb 2022CMA/3308/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue court in Madras dismissed composite civil miscellaneous appeals against CESTAT orders involving misdeclaration of goods as limit exceeded under statutory instruction, holding the tax effect fell below the monetary cap for prosecution, though legal questions were kept open.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed as withdrawn due to tax effect being below the statutory limit imposed by the Board Instruction.

Commissioner of Customs and Vs Aquasub Engineering — Customs and Excise | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.02.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶7

C.M.A. Nos. 3308 & 3309 of 2008

¶8

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise 6/7, ATD Street, Race Course Road Coimbatore – 641 018 .. Appellant in both CMAs Versus

¶9

1.M/s. Aquasub Engineering Thudiyalur Post Coimbatore – 34

¶10

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench Shasthri Bhawan Annexe 1^st Floor, 26 Haddows Road Chennai – 600 006 .. Respondents in CMA No.3308 of 2008

¶11

1.M/s. Texmo Industries Ltd Pump Division PB.No.5303, Thudiyalur Post Coimbatore – 34

¶12

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench Shasthri Bhawan Annexe 1^st Floor, 26 Haddows Road Chennai – 600 006 .. Respondents in CMA No.3309 of 2008

¶13

Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 28.03.2008, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, in Final Order Nos. 296 & 297 of 2008 respectively.

¶14

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

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.A.P.Srinivas (in both cases) Senior Standing Counsel For R1 : Mr.J.Shankar Raman (in both cases) R2 : Tribunal

¶16

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶17

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)

¶18

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, in Final Order Nos. 296 & 297 of 2008, by raising the following substantial questions of law:-

¶19

CMA.No.3308 of 2008:

¶20

“Is the Tribunal right in deciding the case in favour of the party on the question of limitation, when the Tribunal itself has left the issue open in para 4.2 of the subject order and also when the party had deliberately mis-declared their goods as 'Pump Top Bearing Bush', 'Motor Top Bearing Bush', 'Motor Bearing Bush' whereas it was “Plain Shaft Bearing” which is required for running a pump, with intent to evade payment of duty on bearings captively consumed”

¶21

CMA.No.3309 of 2008:-

¶22

“Is the Tribunal right in deciding the case in favour of the party on the question of limitation, when the party had deliberately mis-declared their goods 'Pump Top Bearing Bush', 'Top Bearing Bush', 'pump bearing bush', 'bush bearing back', 'bush bearing front', 'bush', 'distance sleeves, 'pump bearing sleeves' etc. whereas it was “Plain Shaft Bearing” or ''bush bearing' & 'Bearing Sleeves', with intent to evade payment of duty on bearings captively consumed”

¶23

When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the instruction issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (Judicial Cell), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, in F.No.390/Misc/116/2017 – JC dated 22.08.2019, which was communicated by the Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Tamil Nadu & Puducherry, in C.No.IV/16/404/2019-CCO (Legal) dated 23.08.2019, wherein, it is stated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High

¶24

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

¶25

Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in these appeals is less than the threshold limit.

¶26

In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the

¶27

learned standing counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

dhk

¶32

¶33

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore (2)

¶34

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench

¶35

Shasthri Bhawan Annexe

¶36

1^st Floor, 26 Haddows Road

¶37

Chennai – 600 006

¶38

3.The Chief Commissioner of Cenral Excise/Customs Coimbatore

¶39

Copy To:

¶40

The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras-104.

¶41

CMA.Nos. 3308 & 3309 of 2008

¶42

GPL(CO) SB(09/03/2022)

¶43

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

Commissioner of Customs and v. Aquasub Engineering

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Customs and v. Aquasub Engineering

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

Chief Commissioner of Income Vs M/S Vels Institute of Science

The Director (Finance ) Vs the Dy.Commissioner of Income

The Commissioner of Income Vs M/S. Tamilnadu Water

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs M/S Translanka Air Travels

The Commission of Central Vs the Customs Excise and

The Principal Commissioner of Vs Huawel Telecommunications