TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Departmental appeal on Rule 8(3A) excise demand disposed due to low tax effect under monetary limit circular</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Versus R.K. Machine Tools Ltd.</h3> HC dealt with a departmental appeal challenging invocation of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The duty demand involved was Rs. 61,22,878/-, ... Challenge to invoking provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - monetary limit involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- In the present appeal as well, the amount of duty involved is Rs. 61,22,878/- and admittedly in terms of Circular dated 06.08.2024, matters to be pursued by the Department are those having tax effect of Rs. 2 crores and above. Learned counsel for appellant is, however, unable to point out any distinction in the present matter which calls for a decision on merits thereon in view of Circular dated 06.08.2024. It is to be noted that in identical circumstances Civil Appeal No. 6652 of 2018 was dismissed as not pressed. Appeal disposed off. Appeal by the Department challenges Tribunal order dated 30.11.2017 allowing respondent's appeal against order-in-original dated 08.08.2013 which invoked Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Respondent relied on the Gujarat High Court decision in Indsur Global Ltd. holding Rule 8(3A) to be 'ultra vires'. The Department noted that that decision was under challenge in Civil Appeal No. 6652 of 2018, but that appeal (and connected appeals) was subsequently disposed as 'not pressed' due to low tax effect. The duty involved here is Rs. 61,22,878/-, and in terms of Circular dated 06.08.2024 the Department will pursue matters having tax effect of Rs. 2 crores and above. No distinction on merits was shown that would require continuation of this appeal; it challenges a Tribunal order (not a writ under Article 226). In view of the low tax effect and the Circular, the Court did 'not find any justification for continuation' and disposed of the appeal, while keeping the question of law open for decision in appropriate proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
