2017 (1) TMI 495 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - Held that - The instructions dated 17.12.2015 and 01.01.2016 would disclose that a fair decision has been taken by the Ministry of Fiance Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs not to file any appeal before the CESTAT, below the monetary limit of ₹ 10,00,000/- and before the High Courts, below the monetary limit of ₹ 15,00,000/- and before the Supreme Court, below the monetary limit of ₹ 25,00,000/- and despite that instructions, the above appeals have been filed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether Modavat Credit on certain items like Cement, CTD bars/rods, M.S. Angle, M.S.Plate, M.S.Channels, TOR steel rods can be allowed as capital goods eligible for credit under Central Excise Rule, 1944.

Analysis:

1. The appellant's counsel argued that for an item to be considered as "Capital Goods" under Cenvat Credit Rules, it must fall under specified Tariff Chapters or Headings, or be a spare part, component, or accessory. The impugned orders were passed without adhering to this requirement, and the counsel sought interference.

2. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel referred to Ministry of Finance directives specifying monetary limits for filing appeals before CESTAT and courts. The counsel highlighted that the appeals in question fell below these limits. Additionally, the counsel pointed out that similar appeals by Commissioner of Central Excise were dismissed by the High Court in prior decisions, indicating a lack of merit in the present appeals.

3. The court carefully considered both parties' arguments and reviewed the relevant materials. It noted the Ministry's instructions setting monetary limits for filing appeals and observed that the present appeals were filed despite falling below those limits. Moreover, the court referenced previous decisions by the High Court and the Supreme Court, indicating a lack of merit in the current appeals. Consequently, the court found the appeals lacking in substance and dismissed them, upholding the previous orders. No costs were awarded considering the facts of the cases.