Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs M/S.Visteon Automotive Systems ... on 20 January, 2021
CMA.No.2511 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.01.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2511 of 2016
Commissioner of Central Excise III,
121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 034. ...Appellant
Vs
1.M/s.Visteon Automotive Systems India (P) Ltd.,
Keelkaranai Village,
SP Koil Post, Kancheepuram – 603 204.
2.Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
South Zonal Bench,
Shasthri Bhawan Annexe, 1st Floor,
No.26, Haddows Road,
Chennai - 600 006. ...Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35G of Central Excise
Act, 1944 against the impugned order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in Final Order
No.40049/2016 dated 07.01.2016 in Appeal No.E/236/2012-DB on the file
of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
For Appellant: Mr.A.P.Srinivas
For Respondent: Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran for R1
R2- Tribunal
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2511 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
This appeal filed by the appellant under Section 35G(2) of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994 is directed
against the order dated 07.01.2016 made in Final Order No.40049/2016
passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
('the Tribunal' for brevity).
2.The appeal was admitted on 18.11.2016 on the following substantial
question of law:
“1.Whether the Tribunal is correct in setting
aside the equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC of
the Central Excise Act, 1944 when the fact of recovery
of cost of tooling from the customer was not disclosed in
the invoices and duty was paid by the assessee much
later after the department's inspection only?”
3.We have heard Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Revenue and Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2511 of 2016
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 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 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. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
20.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2511 of 2016
To
1.Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
South Zonal Bench,
Shasthri Bhawan Annexe, 1st Floor,
No.26, Haddows Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
2.Commissioner of Central Excise III,
121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai - 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2511 of 2016
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
cse
C.M.A.No.2511 of 2016
20.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
