2014 (8) TMI 983 - HC - Central Excise

Duty demand - Maintainability of appeal - Held that - Stake involved in the present case is ₹ 33,819/-. In view of the above, we do not feel it necessary to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, we do not express any opinion on the questions of law raised. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Final Order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
2. Substantial questions of law regarding contravention of provisions under various acts
3. Discrimination due to granting exemption of Additional Customs Duty
4. Stake involved in the case
5. Precedent from Supreme Court regarding small stake cases

Analysis:

1. The High Court of Madras addressed an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Final Order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal raised substantial questions of law related to the Tribunal's decision and its compliance with provisions under the Central Excise Act, Customs Act, and Customs Tariff Act.

2. The first substantial question of law questioned the Tribunal's dismissal of the department's appeal, alleging contravention of statutory provisions empowering the Department to levy the impugned duty. The second question raised concerns about discrimination resulting from the exemption of Additional Customs Duty, highlighting a disparity between local manufacturers and importers.

3. The Court noted that the stake involved in the case was Rs. 33,819, and both parties did not dispute this amount. Considering this, the Court decided not to interfere with the Tribunal's order and refrained from expressing any opinion on the raised questions of law.

4. Referring to a similar scenario with a small stake, the Court cited a Supreme Court judgment in Collector v. Ramesh C. Vaswani, where the Supreme Court dismissed a civil appeal due to a stake of only Rs. 5,000. Drawing parallels, the High Court emphasized that in cases with minimal amounts at stake, it may not be necessary to intervene, leaving the questions of law for future consideration in more suitable circumstances.

5. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal, keeping the substantial questions of law open for potential review in a more appropriate case and refrained from awarding costs in this matter. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the magnitude of the stake involved in determining the necessity of judicial intervention, aligning with the principles established in previous legal precedents.