Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2013 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 127 - HC - Central ExciseApplicability of circular dated 17/8/2011 related to Reduction of Government litigation - providing monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT/High Courts and Supreme Court - Matter before the Court is whether Credit of service tax paid on services of Customs House Agent/port services is admissible to the manufacturers as ‘input service tax credit’ by overlooking statutory provision of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for which respondent has raised a preliminary objections that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the smallness of amount as in this case the Cenvat Credit amount and of penalty. Held that - In the present appeal the amount involved is Rs. 1,23,739/-. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant could not dispute the contents of the circulars and the monetary limits respectively fixed therein. When the matter came up for admission, the circular had come into force. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned counsel for the appellant ought to have produced to the notice of this Court the Circular dated 17th August 2011 and if this circular had been brought to the notice of this Court the appeal would not have been admitted. It cannot be gainsaid that the Tribunal is bound by its own circular. In our opinion, since in the instant appeal the amount of Cenvat credit and penalty involved is small only in view of Circular dated 17th August 2011 the appeal could not have been preferred by the Central Excise and Customs Department. Same view has been taken by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2011 in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-I vs. M/s. Sanoo Fashion Pvt. Ltd.[2013(4) TMI 76 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the substantial question of law formulated by this Court as the appeal filed by the Revenue itself was not maintainable. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed keeping question open to be filed in appropriate case.
|