Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs The Customs on 3 February, 2021
R.C.No.3 of 2008
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 03.02.2021
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Referred Case No.4 of 2008
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai III Commissionerate,
Chennai ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Customs, Excise & Gold
(Control) Appellate Tribunal,
South Zonal Bench, Chennai.
2.M/s.Ashok Leyland ...Respondents
REFERRED CASE under Section 35H(4) of the Central Excise Act,
1944 against Final Order No.1297/2000 dated 18.09.2000 on the file of the
Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal
Bench, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, SSC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
R.C.No.3 of 2008
Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
We have heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the petitioner.
2.This referred case by the Revenue challenges the order passed by
the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which decided
the issue in favour of the assessee.
3.The referred case was filed by the Revenue by raising the following
substantial questions of law :
“1.Whether the restriction availing modvat credit
within six months is available even in the circumstances
when the date of invoice is 20.03.1995 and the assessee
actually availed the credit on 23.09.1995 i.e. after a lapse
of 3 days and that too when the amended notification
No.28/95 dated 29.06.1995 has taken effect from
29.06.1995?
2.Whether the above restriction is available even
under the circumstances in which modvat credit was taken
after a lapse of 13 months from the date of issue of Invoice
and especially after issue of Notification No.28/95 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
R.C.No.3 of 2008
29.06.1995 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that
credit shall not be taken after six months of the date of
issue of any documents specified in sub rule 3 of Rule
57-G?”
4.The Revenue seeks to withdraw the case on account of low tax
effect in terms of the circular dated 22.8.2019 issued by the Central Board
of Indirect Taxes and Customs. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for
filing or pursuing any matter before the High Court has been increased to
Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than
the threshold limit.
5.In the light of the above, the referred case is dismissed on the
ground of low tax effect and the substantial question of law raised is left
open. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said
circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to file a petition before this Court
to restore the matter to be heard and decided on merits.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
03.02.2021
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
R.C.No.3 of 2008
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
cse
To
The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal
Bench, Chennai.
R.C.No.4 of 2008
03.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
