9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 642 - HC - Central ExciseMonetary amount involved in the appeal - Maintainability of appeal - Held that - The present appeal is not maintainable now due to the tax effect involved in the present case being less than the prescribed monetary limit of ₹ 50,00,000/- and that the present case does not fall under the exception category of Notification dated 17.08.2011 referred in paragraph No.4 of the aforesaid Instructions dated 11.7.2018 - The appeal filed by Revenue are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
Issues:
Raising of monetary limits for filing appeals in Central Excise and Service Tax cases before different forums. Analysis: The judgment discusses the instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs regarding the withdrawal of pending appeals in the field of Central Excise and Service Tax. The monetary limit for maintaining appeals before High Courts has been raised to ?50,00,000. The instructions dated 11.07.2018 specify the monetary limits for filing appeals in CESTAT, High Courts, and the Supreme Court. These limits are ?20,00,000 for CESTAT, ?50,00,000 for High Courts, and ?1,00,00,000 for the Supreme Court. The instructions apply only to legacy issues related to Central Excise and Service Tax, including pending cases. The withdrawal process for pending cases will follow the existing practice. However, cases involving substantial questions of law will be contested regardless of the prescribed monetary limits. The judgment highlights that the present appeal by the Appellant-Revenue is not maintainable as the tax effect involved is below the prescribed monetary limit of ?50,00,000. The case does not fall under the exception category mentioned in the Notification dated 17.08.2011. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed. The decision is made based on the revised monetary limits set by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The judgment concludes by dismissing the appeal filed by Revenue and states that no costs are imposed in this regard.
|
