1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2015
  6. /
  7. January

4 Whether This Case Involves A ... vs We Have Heard Mr. A.Y. Kogje

High Court Of Gujarat|13 March, 2015
1. We have heard Mr. A.Y. Kogje, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Paritosh Gupta, appearing for Mr.P.M. Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zone Bench, Ahmedabad ["CESTAT" for short], dated 27th November, 2008.
3. The respondent-assessee was issued show cause notice dated 17.4.2003, calling upon them to show cause as to why refund of Rs. 3,09,177/- should not be rejected under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority, that is, Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-IV, Ahmedabad-I, vide Order-in-Original dated 31.7.03 whereby he rejected the refund claim of the respondent-assessee of Rs. 3,09,177/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner [Appeals], who, vide order dated 31.8.2004 rejected the appeal of the respondent. Being further aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal together with application for Page 2 of 3 O/TAXAP/216/2009 JUDGMENT condonation of delay before the CESTAT, who condoned the delay by order dated 27.11.2008. Against this order dated 27.11.2008, the Revenue has preferred this Tax Appeal.
4. In this case, the total amount of refund involved is Rs. 3,09,177/-.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS V. STOVEC INDUSTRIES LTD., reported in 2014(33) STR 124 (Guj) held that in view of Circular dated 17.8.2011, tax appeal involving the duty amount below Rs. 10 lakh is not maintainable and this Circular also applies to the pending appeal. Following the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, we dismiss this tax appeal as not maintainable since the amount of refund claim is below Rs. 10 Lakh.
6. As the main appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, Civil Application No. 76 of 2009 stands disposed of.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) pirzada Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.