9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1186 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - monetary limit involved in the appeal as per CBIC circular dated 02.11.2023 - Re-assessment of goods at enhanced value set aside - restoration of self-assessment at the declared value - evidence to prove that any additional consideration was paid to the exporters or not - onus on the department to establish that the declared value - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to mention here that the amount of duty involved in each of the appeal is below of the threshold limit prescribed in circular dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC wherein it is provided that if the duty amount involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs, then no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT, and if already filed, the same will be withdrawn by the department. Reference made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE, SERVICE TAX, NASHIK II COMMISSIONERATE, VERSUS M/S. SUVARNA SANJIVANI SUGARCANE 2017 (6) TMI 858 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , wherein the Hon ble High Court has observed ' There is no issue that the appeals filed by the department in the year 2012 having monitory limits of below 15/20 lakhs. The above provisions and instructions/circulars therefore covers the case of disposal of these appeals on the same ground. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for such disposal.' The present appeals filed by the department are not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Board - All 7appeals dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the acceptance of enhanced value by the importer during reassessment. 2. Applicability of transaction value as per Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 3. Evidence of additional consideration or related parties affecting the declared price. 4. Onus on the department to prove undervaluation. 5. Precedents of similar cases being set aside by appellate authorities. 6. Applicability of monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBIC instructions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of the acceptance of enhanced value by the importer during reassessment: The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the reassessment of goods at enhanced value, restoring the self-assessment at the declared value. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Dunlop India Ltd. and the Tribunal's final order in Rainbow Fashions, stating that the acceptance of enhanced value proposed by the Department does not preclude the importer from challenging the enhancement of value by way of appeal. 2. Applicability of transaction value as per Customs Valuation Rules, 2007: The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that the department is bound to accept the transaction value at all times as per Rule 3(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR 2007), except when the circumstances mentioned in the proviso to Rule 3(2) exist. This was supported by the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. 3. Evidence of additional consideration or related parties affecting the declared price: The Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence to prove that any additional consideration was paid to the exporters or that the parties were related to each other, or that the price was not the sole consideration for sale. In the absence of any supporting evidence to prove undervaluation, the assessable value cannot be re-determined. 4. Onus on the department to prove undervaluation: The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the onus was on the department to establish that the declared value was undervalued for non-commercial reasons, citing the decision of CESTAT in the case of Pushpanjali Silks (P) Ltd. 5. Precedents of similar cases being set aside by appellate authorities: The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that similar enhancements in value in past cases of similar imports of fabric had been set aside by the Appellate Authorities and the Hon'ble Tribunal. Related case laws were quoted in support of this claim. 6. Applicability of monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBIC instructions: The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the appeals are not maintainable due to the monetary threshold limits prescribed by the Ministry of Finance, CBEC, which prohibit filing appeals below Rs. 50 lakhs. The Ministry had introduced a National Litigation Management Policy to reduce litigation, which includes instructions on monetary limits for filing appeals. The CBIC's latest instructions dated 02.11.2023, fixed the monetary limit for filing appeals before the CESTAT at Rs. 50 lakhs. The learned Counsel cited various decisions where courts dismissed appeals due to low tax effects, reinforcing the binding nature of these instructions on the department. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the department, concluding that the appeals were not maintainable in view of the CBIC's instructions dated 02.11.2023, which prescribe monetary limits below which appeals shall not be filed. The Tribunal emphasized that these instructions are binding on the department, and the present appeals fell within the stipulated monetary threshold limit. Consequently, all seven appeals were dismissed, leaving the question of law open.
|
