2019 (9) TMI 645 - HC - Central Excise

Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Monetary amount involved in the appeal - clandestine removal - 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. ₹ 50, 53, 000/- approximately is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues: Delay in refiling the appeal, condonation of delay, legality of tribunal's order, monetary limit for appeal

The judgment involves the issue of delay in refiling the appeal, for which an application seeking condonation of the delay has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Another application has been submitted for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The main case revolves around a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing knitted cloth and garments, accused of clandestinely clearing goods without accounting for them or paying Central Excise Duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, penalty, and interest, which was appealed by the respondent before CESTAT. The Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, leading to the present appeal raising substantial questions of law regarding the legality of the Tribunal's order.

The first substantial question of law raised in the appeal questions the legality of the Tribunal's order, specifically whether it can be considered lawful despite ignoring admissions of clandestine removal of goods made by the director of the respondent company. The second question queries the sustainability of the Tribunal's judgment in the eyes of the law. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel acknowledged that the appeal may not be maintainable before the High Court due to a monetary limit set by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The demand amount to be recovered falls below the specified limit of ?1 Crore, rendering the appeal potentially non-maintainable.

In light of the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance, the appellant's counsel requested the withdrawal of the instant appeal, while emphasizing that the questions of law raised should remain open for future consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as requested. As a result of the dismissal of the main appeal, no specific orders were passed on the applications seeking condonation of delay, as they became inconsequential following the withdrawal of the appeal.