9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c and above. The said monetary limit came to be enhanced upto ₹ 10 lac by Circular dated 17th December 2015. The Central Board of Excise Customs by its extent Instruction F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 1st January 2016 has clarified that Circular dated 17th December 2015, whereunder monetary limits for Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court entertaining the appeal has been fixed is to be understood as also applicable to all pending appeals before CESTAT and High Courts - an appeal which was pending as on the date of 1st January 2016, within monetary limit fixed under Circular dated 17th December 2015. Then such appeals were not maintainable before CESTAT. This aspect having been noticed by Tribunal in the instant cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C dated 17.08.2011 monitory limit was fixed at ₹ 10 lakhs and as such appeal filed by the revenue against order dated 08.08.2018, which involved the tax component of ₹ 1,81,754/- could not have been prosecuted or not? 4. We have heard Sri Dakshina Murthy, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri Akash Shetty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N R Bhaskar, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent and perused the records. 5. Appellant has been supplying Polyethylene Insulated Jell Filled (PIJF) Telephone Cables of various sizes falling under Chapter Sub-heading 85444990 to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short BSNL ) based on the purchase orders raised by respective regional offices of BSNL. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price, assessee has raised supplementary invoices to realize the balance amount. Assessee has paid differential duty in cases where copper final price is higher than provisional price in other cases where the final copper price is less than the provisional price and or where duty appeared to be paid excess, assessee has applied for refund of duty excess paid. Said claims were processed and by orders in original dated 28th February 2007 vide Annexures-H, J, J1 and K. Order of refund was ordered. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order, appeals came to be filed before the Appellate Authority viz., Commissioner of Appeal in Appeal Nos.268, 269 and 301 of 2007 under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which came to be adjudicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isional assessment which was made by submitting a request letter dated 26th October 2005 had been declined by the Superintendent of Central Excise vide Annexure-D and as such appellant/assessee ought to have filed an application for refund within a period of one year from the date of said communication dated 7th December 2005 and the application for refund which was filed on 22nd December 2006 was beyond the period of one year as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and as such appeal of the Revenue came to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the original Authority as affirmed by Appellate Authority. Hence, this appeal. RE. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW: 9. It is the contention of Sri Dakshina Murt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 17th December 2015, whereunder monetary limits for Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court entertaining the appeal has been fixed is to be understood as also applicable to all pending appeals before CESTAT and High Courts. In other words, an appeal which was pending as on the date of 1st January 2016, within monetary limit fixed under Circular dated 17th December 2015. Then such appeals were not maintainable before CESTAT. This aspect having been noticed by Tribunal in the instant case could not have entertained the appeal by Revenue. It was required to be dismissed as monetary limit fixed was ₹ 10 lac and in the instant case, the quantum of refund, which was subject matter of appeal, was ₹ 1,81,754/- (BED ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
