2016 (2) TMI 954 - HC - Customs

Import of Chiller Unit which contained the restricted substance, namely, R-22 - the case of INTERNATIONAL COMPONENTS INDIA LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., CHENNAI 2010 (3) TMI 637 - CESTAT, CHENNAI referred where it was held that appellants imported a Chiller Unit, which is a component of the Injection Moulding Machine under a license granted to the appellant-EOU machinery is not of the category specified under the list of restricted equipment, hence no fine or penalty. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed, as withdrawn. It is made clear that the questions of law, which may arise for the decision of this Court, in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, are left open to be considered and decided in appropriate cases, in accordance with law. It is also made clear that it would be open to the Appellant/Department to revive the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, if it is found that it had been withdrawn, inadvertently, even though it falls under the exceptions mentioned in the relevant instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, within a period of twelve weeks from today. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Summary

Issues:
Withdrawal of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal based on monetary limit set by Central Board of Excise & Customs.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Mr. M. Jaichandren and Mrs. S. Vimala, JJ., of the Madras High Court pertains to the withdrawal of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Appellant/Department. The learned counsel representing the Department requested permission to withdraw the appeal citing the instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, dated 17-12-2015. The counsel highlighted that the monetary limit related to the matter was less than Rs. 15,00,000. Consequently, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal based on this ground.

Furthermore, the counsel sought liberty from the Court to revive the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal if it was withdrawn inadvertently, even if falling under the exceptions mentioned in the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. In response to these submissions, the Court dismissed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as withdrawn. However, the judgment clarified that the legal questions arising from this appeal would remain open for consideration and decision in appropriate cases in accordance with the law.

Moreover, the judgment explicitly stated that the Appellant/Department could revive the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal within a period of twelve weeks from the judgment date if it was found to have been withdrawn inadvertently, despite falling under the exceptions outlined in the relevant instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The Court concluded the judgment by mentioning that no costs were imposed and that the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed. This comprehensive analysis reflects the Court's decision regarding the withdrawal and potential revival of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal based on the monetary limit set by the Central Board of Excise & Customs.