2015 (10) TMI 683 - HC - Central Excise

Duty demand - held that - Since the dispute relates to prior to the notification, appeal should have been admitted by the Tribunal. Appellant argued that in one of such matters, In a precedent case, this Court has been pleased to admit the appeal. We have called for the original file of the matter referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and it appears that we have admitted the appeal on fact that at the time of preferring appeal the Circular was not in force. According to us, the date of filing of the appeal is reckoning factor in order to see whether above notification is to be applied or not and it is not the time when the dispute arose. - No reason to interfere with the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) based on substantial questions of law.
2. Justification of CESTAT, Bangalore in rejecting the appeal based on monetary limits without considering the facts and merits of the case.
3. Correctness of CESTAT, Bangalore in rejecting appeals despite the disputed period predating a specific Board Circular.
4. Justification of CESTAT, Bangalore in relying on a specific case decision.
5. Compliance with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 in rejecting the appeal.
6. Rejection of the appeal by CESTAT, Bangalore contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in question was filed against a small order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Bangalore. The appeal was sought to be admitted on several substantial questions of law, including the justification of CESTAT in rejecting the appeal based on monetary limits without delving into the facts and merits of the case.

2. The learned Tribunal, in its order, observed that the appeal should not have been preferred as the duty involved was below a specified amount as per a Central Board of Excise & Customs Circular. The appellant argued that since the dispute pertained to a period before the notification came into force, the appeal should have been admitted. The High Court noted a previous matter where an appeal was admitted due to the Circular not being in force at the time of filing. The court emphasized that the date of filing the appeal is crucial in determining the applicability of the notification, not the time when the dispute arose.

3. Consequently, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of CESTAT, Bangalore, and dismissed the appeal. The court highlighted that the timing of filing the appeal is a significant factor in applying the Circular's provisions. The decision was made without any order as to costs, concluding the judgment on this matter.