2022 (4) TMI 829 - SC - Central Excise

Maintainability of revenue appeal - Inappropriateness of the direction given in the circular issued by the Department to follow regime of call-book - threshold monetary limit - Circular No. 17/2019 (F. No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.), dated 8th August, 2019 - HELD THAT - The assessee can raise grounds independent of that contention. But if the assessee chooses to raise ground regarding call-book regime, that contention must await the outcome of the proceedings pending before this Court in the connected cases listed today. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority ought to proceed with the appeal keeping in mind the aforementioned observation and on its own merits in accordance with law. Further, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal uninfluenced by the finding or observation made by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order, including on the merits of the contention. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of circular regarding call-book regime.
2. Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority in tax matters.
3. Applicability of circular in appeal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the interpretation of a circular regarding the call-book regime in the case. The High Court had accepted the respondent's argument against following the direction in the circular issued by the Department. The Court noted that the demand of tax against the respondent was less than the prescribed amount in the circular, rendering the special leave petition unnecessary.

2. The Court acknowledged the Department's concern that the respondent might challenge the order confirming the demand of central excise duty and raise issues regarding the call-book regime in an appeal. To allay this concern, the Court clarified that if the respondent chooses to appeal, they cannot challenge the call-book regime's correctness as specified in the circular. The Appellate Authority was directed to proceed with the appeal independently and decide on its merits, uninfluenced by previous findings.

3. In another related petition, the Court disposed of the matter on similar terms as the previous case, noting that the issue raised was akin to the earlier case. The Court emphasized that the respondent in this case cannot contest the call-book regime in appeal proceedings. Both petitions were disposed of, leaving all questions open and pending applications were also disposed of by the Court.