2024 (3) TMI 1245 - AT - Customs

Monetary Limit - Filing of Appeal by the Revenue / Department - threshold limit for filing appeals as per Central Board of Indirect Customs (CBIC) circulars - Instruction are binding effect Or not - Valuation of imported goods - Aluminum Scrap - rejection of declared value - enhancement of assessable value - HELD THAT - On Persual of the provisions, it is clear that the Instruction/Circulars are mandatory/binding vis-a-vis the Departmental Officers are concerned. However, vis-a-vis the Superior Courts including Tribunals, the objective is different. The Tribunal as well as Superior Courts have to prioritize the interest of justice. It is the mandate for the Courts to see that none shall be condemned un-heard and that none shall be pre-judicially affected. The Courts/Adjudicating Authorities have to see whether any Circular/Instruction of the department is sufficient enough to fulfil the requisite interest of justice in the given set of circumstances. The order of Commissioner (Appeals) under challenge before us is held to have been passed in violation of statutory mandate. Hence it cannot be allowed to attain finality due to Departmental Instructions or Clarifications which have to be within the four corners of parent legislation. The circular was for department to follow and not for the assessee to rely upon, especially when the self assessment of assessee is under shadow of doubt, more so when the department is being denied the proper opportunity to defend its stance. Above all, there cannot be any intention of the Department to issue any instruction which is detrimental to its own interest. As observed above, the only intention of the impugned instruction for fixing monetary limit is to reduce the Department litigation. The instruction cannot be enforced at the cost of prejudice to the issuing authority itself. Rule of law requires a fair opportunity of being heard even to Government Authorities/Department herein. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the decision of Sanjivani Non-ferros Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2018 (12) TMI 738 - SUPREME COURT as in that case, the enhancement has not under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. Instead of counting each Bill of Entry for the purpose of calculating threshold monetary limit for filing appeal, it may be seen that all the 30 Bills of Entry pertain to one importer, namely Century Metal Recycling Private Limited for the same commodity i.e. aluminium scrap imported during more or less same period/time. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed one Order -in -Appeal for all the 57 Bills of Entry though numbered as 59-115/2019. Against the said OIA, this appeal is filed before this Tribunal (CESTAT). In view of said Rule 6A of CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982, we hold that the present case to be a fit case for this bench to exercise its power to not accept the CBIC instructions in this particular appeal and hold that CBIC Instruction F. No. 90 dated 17.08.2011 prescribing monetary limit for filing appeals before this Tribunal is not mandatory. Consequently, we hold that the Departmental Appeals shall be heard on merits. List for final hearing on 13th May, 2024.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Threshold limit for filing appeals as per CBIC Instructions.
2. Clubbing of multiple Bills of Entry for calculating the monetary limit.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice by not remanding the matter back to the proper officer.
4. Binding nature of CBIC instructions on the courts and tribunals.

Summary:

Threshold Limit for Filing Appeals:
The Respondent-Assessee objected to the appeal on the grounds that the amount involved was below the threshold limit of Rs. 50.00 Lakhs as per CBIC Instruction F. No. 390 dated 17.08.2011, amended on 30.12.2016. The Department argued that this objection was not raised in the cross-objection and should not be permissible at this stage. The Tribunal held that CBIC instructions are binding on departmental officers but not on courts or tribunals, and the objective is to reduce government litigation.

Clubbing of Multiple Bills of Entry:
The Department contended that the total amount of duty involved in all 30 Bills of Entry should be clubbed together, which would exceed the threshold limit. The Tribunal noted that all Bills of Entry pertained to one importer, Century Metal Recycling Private Limited, for importing the same product during the same period. Thus, they should be considered collectively for the purpose of the monetary limit.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) violated Section 128A (3) (b) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, by not remanding the matter back to the proper officer despite no speaking order being passed after re-assessment u/s 17. This omission denied the Department an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice.

Binding Nature of CBIC Instructions:
The Tribunal reiterated that while CBIC instructions are binding on departmental officers, they are not binding on courts or quasi-judicial authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that the interest of justice should prioritize over departmental instructions, especially when the self-assessment by the importer is under doubt.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the CBIC instruction on the monetary limit is not mandatory in this case, and the Departmental Appeals shall be heard on merits. The matter is listed for final hearing on 13th May, 2024.

(Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.03.2024)