2023 (6) TMI 1078 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit involved in the appeal - Interpretation of statute - Validity of sub-section 7(A) of Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - demand for a particular period for which Show Cause Notice was issued and not for the subsequent period - HELD THAT - Paragraph 3 of the circular dated 17 August, 2011 states that adverse judgments relating to the following should be contested irrespective of the amount involved (a) Where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge. (b) Where Notification/ Instruction/Order or Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires. It is thus clear from the above circulars which are binding on the revenue that the monetary limit for the revenue to approach this Court in an appeal would be when the claim amount is of Rs. 1 Crore and above. Thus in respect of a claim for an amount involving Rs. 1 Crore and below would not be maintainable as per the said circulars. The appeal would not deserve adjudication and/or is not maintainable - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The legality and interpretation of the Impugned Order dated 22.09.2017 passed by CESTAT, Mumbai regarding the demand for subsequent periods under sub-section 7(A) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Comprehensive Details:

1. The appellant raised several questions of law challenging the Impugned Order passed by CESTAT, Mumbai. They argued that the order was illegal, baseless, and misinterpreted the provisions of Sub-section 7(A) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that the statement of demand fulfilled the conditions as mentioned in sub-section 7(A) and was proper and legal.

2. The appeal was filed by the appellant-revenue against the impugned order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal partly allowed the respondent's appeal by modifying the order-in-original related to Cenvat credit of service tax. The tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant for inadmissible Cenvat credit.

3. The respondent referred to circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs regarding monetary limits for filing appeals before CESTAT, High Courts, and Supreme Court in legacy Central Excise and Service Tax matters. The circulars specified monetary limits below which appeals shall not be filed in higher forums.

4. The circulars indicated that issues involving substantial questions of law should be contested irrespective of the prescribed monetary limits. It was clarified that the monetary limit for the revenue to approach the Court in an appeal would be when the claim amount is Rs. 1 Crore and above. Claims involving amounts below Rs. 1 Crore would not be maintainable as per the circulars.

5. Considering the questions of law raised by the revenue and the monetary limit set by the circulars, the Court concluded that the appeal was not maintainable and did not deserve adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of with no costs incurred.