2015 (7) TMI 142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not maintainable. - Decided against Revenue. - C.M.A. No. 1431 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan For the Respondents : Mr. S. Jayakumar - R2 JUDGMENT (Delivered By R. Sudhakar, J.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the second respondent, the Revenue/appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 10.06.2011, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions 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 Commissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct, 1994, initiated review proceedings calling for the recording of the proceedings of the Adjudicating Authority and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 76 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of revision, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, took the appeal itself. The Tribunal relying upon the decisions of the Tribunal set aside the review order passed by the Commissioner holding that when the dispute is pending before the Appellate Commissioner, the Commissioner 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... instruction, for preferring an appeal, monetary limit is fixed and only if the monetary limit exceeds ₹ 2 Lakhs, appeal can be filed. Since the monetary limit in the present case, even as per the order of the Adjudicating Authority is well within the limit of ₹ 2 Lakhs, the present appeal, filed by the Department, is not maintainable. 5. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Department and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/assessee and perused the materials available on record. 6. Even though this appeal was admitted on the questions of law referred to supra, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal in view of the preliminary objection made by the learned counsel for the seco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X