2019 (9) TMI 579 - HC - Central Excise

Permission for withdrawal of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT - The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22.8.2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as demand amount i.e. ₹ 52,84,424/- is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay of 1475 days in filing the appeal.
2. Central Excise duty demand on goods bearing brand name of another person.
3. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
4. Liability of the assessee to pay duty, interest, and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1475 days, prompting the appellant to seek condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, during the hearing, it was noted that the demand amount of ?52,84,424 falls below the monetary limit of ?1 Crore as per the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance. Consequently, the appellant requested to withdraw the appeal, which was dismissed as withdrawn with the question of law raised remaining open. No orders were passed on the application for condonation of delay due to the dismissal of the main appeal.

2. The case involved a respondent-company engaged in manufacturing and clearance of excisable goods without proper registration with the Central Excise Department. A show cause notice was issued, leading to a demand of ?52,84,424 along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal allowed the appeal solely on the point of limitation, raising questions on the correctness and legality of setting aside the demand without discussing the case's merits. The issue of liability to pay duty, interest, and penalty was also raised, but the appeal was withdrawn before a decision could be made on these matters.

3. The appellant questioned the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal based on limitation alone, without delving into the case's merits. This raised concerns about the invocation of the extended period of limitation in the circumstances of the case. The legal justification and correctness of the Tribunal's action were brought into question, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the case beyond the limitation aspect.

4. The matter of the assessee's liability to pay duty, interest, and penalty in the given circumstances was left unresolved due to the withdrawal of the appeal. The questions regarding the duty payment and associated financial obligations remained unanswered as the main appeal was dismissed with the issue of law raised being kept open for future consideration.