9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stions of law for consideration :- "1) Whether the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in concluding that the Revision Order passed by the Commissioner under the provision of Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994 to be set aside when the issue under revision was not pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)? 2) Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in setting aside the Revision Order passed by the Commissioner even, when the Original Authority had committed a mistake apparent on the face of record in omitting to impose penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994?" 2. The second respondent/assessee is engaged in the business of rendering photography service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Central Excise should not impose higher penal liability. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/assessee raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the case of the appellant contending that the appellant ought not to have filed appeal in view of the litigation policy of the Government issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Instructions dated 20.10.2010 in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC, wherein the following instruction has been issued :- "5. The Board has decided that appeals in the Tribunal shall not be filed where the duty involved or the total revenue including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal in view of the preliminary objection made by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the monetary limit to prefer an appeal is pegged at Rs. 2,00,000/- by the litigation policy of the Government issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Instructions dated 20.10.2010 in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC. 7. It is seen from the records that the adjudicating authority initially imposed Rs. 52,417/- as service tax with applicable interest and penalty equivalent to the demand of Rs. 52,417/-. Therefore, it is very clear from the records that the monetary limit having been fixed at Rs. 2 Lakhs, even as per the order of the Adjudicating Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
