Dismissed

The Comissioner of Customs, v. M/s. Pravesha Insustrial Pvt. Ltd.

Telangana HC21 Sept 2024CEA/193/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Commissioner of Customs sought withdrawal of a central excise appeal as tax effect was below Rs. 2 crore per CBIC Circular No. 3 of 2018. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if exceptions applied; question of law left open.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty for restoration application

The Comissioner of Customs, Vs M/s. Pravesha Insustrial… — Customs and Excise | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

SATURDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL RAJESHWAR RAo THE H.N,BLE sRrJUSrcE "lil?ro*o",

¶5

CENTRAL EXcrsE APPEAL NO: 193 OF 2018

¶6

Between:

¶7

The commissioner of customs, centrar Excise and service Tax, Hyderabad- | commissionerate, Kendriya snurr< Btrivan,- rIal6Lo* Road, Basheerbaoh Hvderabad -500004(p resentv the c om m isil;", .f c-;;;;i rri, ciirtrziEi;#:1li Service tax, Medchai commisiionlrai;i^{--''-' "' ""'} ...ApPELLANT AND

¶8

M/s, Pravesha lnsustriat pvt_. Limited ( Unit _il) Sy.No.81 and 84, plot No.43 Anrich, tndustriar Estare, Boraram. Jinriair, rr,t.lar( oiitlict,ielnlani -'iitiiizs

¶9

,..RESPONDENT

¶10

Appear fired under section 35-G of the centrar Excise Act, 1g44 against the order of the customs, Excrse & Servrce Tax Apperate Tribunar, Regionar Bench at Hyderabad' vide Finar order No. N317g4-317g6t201r in Appear No. E/ 3074912017 dated 13-1 1'201r preferred against the order in Appear No. 53 / 2015 ( (H-l) cE dated 06-06-2016 on the fire of the commissioner of customs & central Excise (Appears ) Hyderabad preferred against the order in originar No. 267 I 2015-16 R dated 18-08-2015 on the fire of the Deputy commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Jinnaram Divrsion , Hyderabad.

¶11

!ou1-s9]^{for the Apperant:SRr.A. RAMA KRTSHNAREDoy,} Standing counsel for CBIC.

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent: SRt KARAN TALWAR

¶13

The Court delivered the following Judgment:

t I I

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICESUJOY PAUL}

¶18

.AND

¶19

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPURAJESIIWARRAO} cENTRAL E)(CISE^{APPEALNo.193 of2O18}

¶20

JUDGMENT:^{(Per HonbleSri Justice SujoyPaul)}

¶21

Sri A. Rama Krishna^{Reddy,learned Senior StandingCounsel} for Central - Board of^{Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC),for the} appellant, would submit^{that, in termsof CBIC CircularNo.3 of 2O18'} dated O6.Oa.2O24, all^{appeals, wherethe taxeflect isbelow} Rs.2,OO,OO,OOO/ - are^{requiredto be withdrawn and, as the value of the} present appeal is less than^{Rs.2,O0,OO,OOO/-,the appellantmay be} permitted to withdraw the appeal. Learned^{SeniorStanding Counsel} would further submit that^{libertymaybe granted, in case it were to be} found later that the subject^matter of^{the appeal falls wrthinthe} exceptions mentioned in the^{aforesaidCircular, to file an applic:rtion for} restoration of the appeal.

¶22

Granting liberty as sought for, the appeal is^{dismissed as} wrthdrawn. The question of law involved in this appeal^{will remain open} No costs.

¶23

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand

¶24

closed

¶25

Sd/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M.^SARMA GISTRAR

¶26

/TTRUE COPY/'

¶27

OFFICER

¶28

To i ] ftre Customs^{Excise & Service Tax AppelllleTribunal'Regional Bench} ' ;i!yil;;;;u] r=i-ii"o., nruwsse Buililins' Rear Portion' Khairathabad' Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner^{of Customs&CentralExcise, (Appeals),7th Floor,} Kendriya Shulk^{Bhavan, Opp.L.B.stadiumBasheerbagh' Hyderabad}

¶29

i I l

¶30

¶31

The Deputy Commissioner of Customs & C entral Excise for Jinnaram

¶32

Division , gth Floor, Tilak Road , Ramkoti, Hyderabad

¶33

' ,'dtt|?^{to sRl. A. RAMAKRIsHNA REDDv} (sc FoR GBEC), Advocate

¶34

One CC to SRI. KARAN

¶35

\I TALWAR Advocate toPUCl 5. Two cD copies w

HIGH COURT

DATED:211O912024

x \

JUDGMENT

CEA.No.193 of 2018

1 E -i.a. <br>oir 'l i
,', :<br>07 N lrl I
L It
* t)fs,,

¶43

DIS\IISSI( i I IIT,- ('EA N S

¶44

\ I I IIt)I{,,\\ N \'I I'I TOTJT COSTS

¶45

+coPS'A fr ){ \o a\

The Comissioner of Customs, v. M/s. Pravesha Insustrial Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Comissioner of Customs, v. M/s. Pravesha Insustrial Pvt. Ltd.

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

Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society v v Palem Vs The Income tax officer ward 1, Khammam

Primary Agriculture Co. Operative Societygarikapadu Rep. By Its Secretary Vs The income tax officer ward 1

The Commissioner of Customs, Cestat, Hyderabad Vs M/S. a.P.Tourism Development Corp., Ltd.

The Commissioner Vs M/s.Pravesha

Shyam Kumar Nallella Vs Assessment Unit

The Prl Commr Customs, Cest, Hyderabad Vs M/S Rama Spinners [P] Ltd., Medak Dist