TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HENLAY CABLES [ 2022 (11) TMI 796 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] where it was held that The Board, in its communication dated 19.10.2022 has indicated, that an SLP should not be filed, having regard to the monetary limit, keeping the question of law open in terms of Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is considered apposite to close this appeal as well on the ground that the tax effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period of 20.01.2011 to 28.03.2015. After the investigations were completed, Show Cause Notices dated 15.07.2011 and 15.01.2016 were issued. The said Show Cause Notices were adjudicated and by an Order-in-Original dated 25.05.2017, a total demand of ₹91,853/-was confirmed, which included penalty of ₹11,981/-. 3. The respondent s application for refund of an amount of ₹69,08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a similar issue (being Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Delhi East v. Batra Henlay Cables: CEAC 5/2022] was disposed of by an order dated 24.08.2022. 7. The proposal to prefer a Special Leave Petition against the said decision was rejected by the Board on the ground that the effect on the Revenue was lower than the prescribed monetary limit. In the meantime Revenue had filed an applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was expressly rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in an order dated 11.11.2022 passed in Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST, Delhi East v. Batra Henlay Cables (supra). Following the said decision, we consider it apposite to close this appeal as well on the ground that the tax effect is below the monetary limit as prescribed. 11. In view of the above, the present appeal is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
