2020 (1) TMI 803 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit involved in the appeal - HELD THAT - In the present case, there is no challenge to the constitutional validity of any particular Provision, Act or Rule nor there is any challenge to the legality, validity of any Notification/Instruction/Order or Circular. In such circumstances, the Instruction dated 17th August 2011 referred to in Paragraph-4 of the Instruction dated 22nd August 2019 will have no application. In view of the monetary limit prescribed by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, this appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against CESTAT order - Monetary limit for maintainability of appeal - Instruction by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 22nd August 2019 - Contesting adverse judgments irrespective of monetary limits as per Instruction dated 17th August 2011.

Analysis:
The High Court heard an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, filed by the Revenue against a final order by the CESTAT. The original order by the Assistant Commissioner confirmed Central Excise duty, interest, and imposed a penalty. The Court noted the monetary limit for appeal maintainability set by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue in an instruction dated 22nd August 2019. The Court observed that as per the Instruction, certain issues involving substantial questions of law must be contested regardless of the monetary limits. These include challenges to constitutional validity or the legality of notifications, instructions, orders, or circulars. However, in the present case, there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of any provision or the legality of any notification, instruction, order, or circular.

The Court referred to Clause 1.3 of the Instruction dated 17th August 2011, which mandates contesting adverse judgments related to specific issues irrespective of the amount involved. Since the present case did not involve challenges to constitutional validity or the legality of notifications, instructions, orders, or circulars, the Instruction dated 17th August 2011 did not apply. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal in consideration of the monetary limit specified by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. However, the Court kept the substantial question of law framed by the Court open for adjudication in a suitable appeal in the future. Ultimately, the Court concluded the appeal by disposing of it, taking into account the relevant legal provisions and instructions provided by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue.