2019 (10) TMI 115 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is an admitted position that the tax effect involved in this case is less than the monetary limit prescribed for preferring departmental appeal before the High Court. However, the learned Senior Standing Counsel has submitted that this case falls within the exceptions contained in the instruction issued by the CBEC, namely that this is a case where a circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBEC for preferring departmental appeals before the High Court.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Customs Act, 1962 - waiver of duty below pecuniary limit for appeal before High Court - Exception for illegal circulars - Maintainability of appeal based on tax effect.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, Commissioner of Customs, challenged an order under the Customs Act, 1962, before the High Court, concerning waiver of duty. The appeal was admitted based on substantial questions of law.

2. The respondent argued that the appeal related to waiver of duty below the pecuniary limit set by the Board of Central Excise and Customs for filing departmental appeals before the High Court. Referring to instructions, it was contended that the tax effect was below the monetary limit, thus the appeal should be dismissed.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that exceptions exist for cases where circulars are deemed illegal or ultra vires. It was highlighted that a previous tribunal order found a circular to be against the provisions of the Customs Act, placing the present appeal within the exception for filing appeals despite the tax effect being below the monetary limit.

4. The Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was indeed below the prescribed monetary limit for departmental appeals. However, it was observed that the tribunal had not explicitly commented on the legality or vires of the circular in question. Therefore, the Court rejected the argument that the case fell within the exception for filing appeals below the monetary limit based on the illegality of the circular.

5. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified by the Board of Central Excise and Customs for filing departmental appeals before the High Court.