TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, even as per the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is well within the limit of ₹ 2 Lakhs, the present appeal, is not maintainable. Held that:- even though the appeal has been admitted way back on 8-9-2008, a cursory look at the duty demand would reveal that the demand is approximately ₹ 1 lakh. The reason for the litigation policy being put into operation coupled with the fact that the duty demand is only to the tune of ₹ 1 lakh approximately would not stand in the way of this Court to bring this appeal within the ambit of the above policy inspite of the appeal having been admitted on 8-9-2008. Therefore, even though this appeal is filed to consider the question of law, we are not inclined to entertain this ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the butterscotch pouch inside the pack of coffee bite without any treatment amounts to manufacture? and 3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing the credit of duty paid on the butterscotch inasmuch as butterscotch was not an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, i.e., coffee bite in view of the definition of input in terms of Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? 2. The 2nd respondent/assessee is a manufacturer of Sugar Confectionery without Cocco falling under chapter sub heading No. 1704.90 and Sugar Confectionery with Cocco falling under chapter sub head No. 1804.00 of the CETA, 1985 respectively. The assessee purchased Sugar Confectionery namely Butter Scotch packaged in 30 gms. pouch fall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has preferred the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd 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 in F.No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC, wherein the following instruction has been issued :- 5. The Board has decided that appeals in the Tribunal shall not be filed where the duty involved or the total revenue including fine and penalty is ₹ 1 Lakh and below. Similarly, in the case of High Courts, appeals should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, there was no bar on the appellant/Department in filing the appeal. 9. 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. 10. 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 8-9-2008. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in the Department filing the appeal. However, it is to be pointed out that the main reason for bringing into effect the National Litigation Policy is to reduce Government litigation so that the Government ceases to be a compulsive litigant. The purpose underlying this Policy is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is appeal in view of the preliminary objection made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the monetary limit to prefer an appeal is pegged at ₹ 2,00,000/- 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. 13. It is seen from the records that the order-in-original came to be passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Cuddalore, vide order in C. No. IV/16/70/2005-UCD, dated 23-12-2005, imposing recovery of wrongly taken credit of ₹ 1,03,167/- from the assessee in terms of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
