Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : ......there Is No Error In The Interpretation Which Has Been Placed By The Tribunal Upon The Provisions Of 86 (6) Of The Finance Act, 1994.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : The Commissioner Of Central Excise Vs. M/S Glyph International Limited On 16/04/2014 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL DEFECTIVE NO. 34 OF 2014
CORAM : Hon'ble Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice And Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Chief Justice's Court A.F.R.

Case :- CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 34 Of 2014

Appellant :- The Commissioner Of Central Excise
Respondent :- M/S Glyph International Limited
Counsel For Appellant :- Amit Mahajan

Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.

This Appeal Has Been Filed Along With A Delay Condonation Application.
Since Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown In The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Delay Condonation Application, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned. The Delay Condonation Application Stands Disposed Of.
The Appeal By The Revenue Arises From A Decision Of The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Dated 2 July 2013.
The Appeal Seeks To Raise The Following Questions Of Law.
"(i) Whether On The Facts And In The Circumstances Of The Case, The CESTAT, New Delhi Has Committed An Error Of Law In Holding That No Fees Is Payable In Filing Appeals Before The CESTAT Relating To Refund/rebate Of Service Tax, Customs And Central Excise Matters ?
(ii) Whether On The Facts And In The Circumstances Of The Case The CESTAT, New Delhi Has Gravely Erred In Interpreting The Provisions Of Section 86 (6) Of The Finance Act, 1994 And Holding That No Fees Is Payable In Filing Appeal Before The CESTAT Relating To Refund/rebate Of Service Tax, Customs And Central Excise Matter Depriving The Revenue To Collect Fee From The Parties From All Over India With Regard To Filing Of Appeals In The Matters Of Refund/rebate Of Service Tax, Customs And Central Excise Matters ?"
Section 86 (6) Of The Finance Act, 1994 Provides As Follows:
"An Appeal To The Appellate Tribunal Shall Be In The Prescribed Form And Shall Be Verified In The Prescribed Manner And Shall, Irrespective Of The Date Of Demand Of Service Tax And Interest Or Of Levy Of Penalty In Relation To Which The Appeal Is Made, Be Accompanied By A Fee Of,-
a. Where The Amount Of Service Tax And Interest Demand And Penalty Levied By Any Central Excise Office In The Case To Which The Appeal Relates Is Five Lakh Rupees Or Less, One Thousand Rupees;
b. Where The Amount Of Service Tax And Interest Demanded And Penalty Levied By Any Central Excise Officer In The Case To Which The Appeal Relates Is More Than Lakh Rupees But Not Exceeding Fifty Lakh Rupees, Five Thousands, Rupees;
c.Where The Amount Of Service Tax And Interest Demanded And Penalty Levied By Any Central Excise Officer In The Case Of Which The Appeals Relates Is More Than Fifty Lakh Rupees, Ten Thousand Rupees:
Provided That No Fees Shall Be Payable In The Case Of An Appeal Referred To In Sub-section (2) Or Sub-section (2A) Or A Memorandum Of Cross-objections Referred To In Sub-section (4)."
Section 86 (6) Refers To The Fee Which Has To Accompany An Appeal. The Fees Are Respectively 1000 Rupees, 5000 Rupees And 10,000 Rupees Based On "the Amount Of Service Tax And Interest Demanded And Penalty" Levied. Where The Service Tax And Interest Demand And Penalty Levied Is Rupees Five Lakhs Or Less, The Fee Is One Thousand Rupees; Where The Service Tax And Interest Demanded And Penalty Levied Is More Than Five Lakhs But Does Not Exceed Rupees Fifty Lakhs, The Fee Is Five Thousand Rupees; And Where The Amount Of Service Tax And Interest Demanded And Penalty Levied Is More Than Fifty Lakhs, The Fee Is Ten Thousand Rupees.
Section 86 (6) Does Not Speak Of A Refund/rebate. As The Tribunal Has Correctly Held, There Is No Residuary Provision In Section 86 (6).
On The Contrary, Prior To 1 November 2004 When Section 86 (6) Came Into Force, The Earlier Provision Was As Follows:
"(6) An Appeal To The Appellate Tribunal Shall Be In The Prescribed Form And Shall Be Verified In The Prescribed Manner And Shall, Except In The Case Of An Appeal Referred To In Sub-section (2) Of Sub-section (4), Be Accompanied By A Fee Of Two Hundred Rupees."
The Earlier Provision, Therefore, Was For The Payment Of A Fee Of Rupees Two Hundred In Case Of Every Appeal (save For The Excepted Category). The Present Provision Does Not Contain An Analogous Arrangement.
In The Circumstances, There Is No Error In The Interpretation Which Has Been Placed By The Tribunal Upon The Provisions Of 86 (6) Of The Finance Act, 1994.
In View Of The Above, This Appeal Will Not Raise Any Substantial Question Of Law. The Appeal Is, Accordingly, Dismissed. There Shall Be No Order As To Costs.

Order Date :- 16.4.2014 (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud,C.J.)
RK

(Dilip Gupta,J.)


C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 137117 Of 2014
IN Re:
Case :- CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 34 Of 2014
***
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.

Disposed Of.
For Orders, See Order Of Date Passed On The Memo Of Appeal.

Go to Navigation