AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—1. This appeal by the appellant is arising out of the impugned order dated 20-2-2015, passed in Final Order No. 20412/2015, by the CESTAT, for considering the following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether the impugned Final Order of the CESTAT is right particularly in view of the language used in Section 69 of the Finance Act R/w. Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules which make the registration as a mandatory condition to avail the benefit of Cenvat credit or distribution of Cenvat credit?
(ii) Whether, the word "shall" referred in Section 69 of the Finance Act, R/w. Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is to be interpreted as mandatory or directory (procedural) considering the context and the objects of the statute?"
We have heard learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing respondent.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent, at the outset submitted that, in the light of the Instruction dated 17th December, 2015 issued by the Ministry of Finance, the subject matter involved in this case is less than Rs. 15/- lakhs and therefore, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
Learned counsel appearing for appellant has not disputed the above submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent.
The above submission made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties is placed on record. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after going through the instruction dated 17th December, 2015 and the communication dated 1st January, 2016 bearing F. No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC issued by the Ministry of Finance. Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Ordered accordingly.