TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, even as per the order of the Revisional authority, the interest and penalty being less than ₹ 2 Lakhs, the appeal is not maintainable. - circular issued by the Board is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case - Decided against Revenue. - C. M. A. No. 1735 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2015 - R Sudhakar And K B K Vasuki, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. T Chandrasekaran For the Respondent : Mr. J Shankar Raman JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar, J. ) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, the Revenue/appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This appeal was admitted by this Court, on 16.07.2010, on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002-TRU dated 01.08.2002 which are inapplicable to the facts of this case ? 2. The respondent / assessee is a proprietory concern engaged in the business of providing services in handling, storage and transportation of fertilizers of M/s. Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, who are having their factory at Paradeep, Orissa and their head office at New Delhi. On the basis of information received that the assessee was not discharging appropriate Service Tax on the remuneration received towards the services provided by the assessee to M/s. Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. for the purpose of handling despatches of Urea / DAP / NKP by railways, the officers attached to the Madurai Regional Unit of the Directorate General of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,49,170/- on the assessee under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Against the said order, the respondent/assessee preferred appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on considering the facts of the case, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, against which the appellant/Department has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the case of the appellant contending that the appellant ought not to have filed the appeal in view of the litigation policy of the Government issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise Customs vide Instructions dated 20.10.2010 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel appearing for the Department submitted that the appeal was admitted on 25.3.2010 and the National Litigation Policy of the Government was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise Customs vide Instructions dated 20.10.2010 in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC and, therefore, there was no bar on the appellant/Department in filing the appeal. 8. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Department and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee and perused the materials available on record. 9. As submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Department, the National Litigation Policy was issued on 20.10.2010 while the appeal was admitted on 25.3.2010. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- by the litigation policy of the Government issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise Customs vide Instructions dated 20.10.2010 in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC. 11. It is seen from the records that the revisional order came to be passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy, vide order dated 13.12.2007, imposing penalty of ₹ 200/- per day under section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 and also a penalty of ₹ 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,49,170/- on the assessee under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, it is very clear from the records that the monetary limit having been fixed at ₹ 2 Lakhs, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
