2016 (5) TMI 445 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability - 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 ₹ 15/- lakhs , therefore not maintainable - Held that - after going through the instruction dated 17th December, 2015 and the communication dated 1st January, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Finance. Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable. - Appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 69 of the Finance Act and Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules regarding mandatory registration for Cenvat credit.
2. Interpretation of the term "shall" in Section 69 of the Finance Act, Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules as mandatory or procedural.

Analysis:
1. The appeal dealt with the interpretation of Section 69 of the Finance Act and Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules concerning the necessity of registration for availing Cenvat credit. The appellant raised questions regarding the correctness of the CESTAT's Final Order in this context. The primary issue was whether registration is a mandatory condition for benefiting from Cenvat credit or its distribution. The court was tasked with determining the legislative intent behind these provisions and their applicability to the case at hand.

2. The second issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "shall" as used in Section 69 of the Finance Act, Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The question was whether this term should be construed as mandatory or merely procedural based on the statutory context and objectives. The court needed to analyze the language of the relevant provisions alongside the broader statutory framework to ascertain the nature of the obligation imposed by the term "shall."

3. During the proceedings, the respondent pointed out that the case involved an amount less than Rs. 15 lakhs, citing an Instruction issued by the Ministry of Finance. According to this Instruction, appeals concerning such amounts were deemed not maintainable. The appellant did not contest this assertion. Subsequently, the court considered the Ministry's Instruction dated December 17, 2015, and a communication from January 1, 2016, issued by the Department of Revenue. Based on these documents and the submissions of both parties, the court concluded that the appeal was not maintainable and ordered its dismissal.

4. In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appellant's appeal on the grounds of maintainability due to the amount involved falling below the threshold specified in the Ministry of Finance's Instruction. The judgment did not delve into the substantive issues regarding the interpretation of statutory provisions related to Cenvat credit, as the maintainability issue was deemed decisive in this case.