High CourtsDivision Bench(2016) 03 GUJ CK 0218

Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmedabad-II vs Parth Pharmachem Industries

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 11 March 2016 · Citation: (2017) 346 ELT 352

HON’BLE JUDGES
Akil Kureshi and Mohinder Pal, JJ.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Application (OJ) No. 56 of 2016 with Stamp No. 63 of 2016 in Tax Appeal No. 928 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 212 words

Akil Kureshi, J.—The delay condonation application is filed by the Revenue. In filing review petition, there is a delay of 6 days. We would have readily condoned the same after hearing the other side. However, we also perused the review petition and the ground, on which, the Revenue seeks recall of our order dated 3-12-2015 in Tax Appeal No. 928 of 2015. Such tax appeal was disposed of on the ground of low tax effect recording that the disputed amount is only Rs. 68,630/-. The C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 17-8-2011 would not permit filing of appeals before the High Court involving tax effect of less than Rs. 10 lacs. Review is sought on the ground that this circular provides for certain exceptions, one of them being when the validity of the statute is in question. Admittedly, in the tax appeal, the validity of any statute was not a question. The contention of the Revenue appears to be that the Tribunal had given benefit to the assessee on the basis of invalidation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, this is entirely a different matter and the case, therefore, would not fall under the such exception.

2.

In the result, delay condonation application and the review petition both are dismissed.