2024 (11) TMI 267 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of 4 appeals against a total of 399 Bills of Entry - Interpretation of Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules - HELD THAT - In a case where there are numbers of Bills of Entry and for all Bills of Entry, if one common order-in-original is passed, then only one appeal is sufficient; however as per the Explanation of the Rule 6(A) ibid, it is clear that when more than one order-in-original are passed, then appellant or assessee is required to file numbers of appeals as many as numbers of order-in-original. But in the present cases, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed 4 orders-in-appeal disposed of the appeals covering a total of 399 Bills of Entry; therefore, as per Rule 6(A) ibid the Appellant-Revenue is required to file 399 appeals challenging each Bill of Entry which is an assessment order in itself. Ahmedabad Bench in the case of CMR Nikkie India Pvt Ltd 2021 (6) TMI 270 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD has also interpreted Rule 6(A) and has held that the number of appeals which the department is required to file, will be equivalent to the number of Bills of Entry filed by the importer/assessee. Also in M/s Narbada Industries 2022 (5) TMI 1361 - JAMMU KASHMIR HIGH COURT while interpreting the National Litigation Policy and specifically the phrase monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed , in its aforementioned pronouncement lucidly elucidated that the said phrase pertains to the monetary threshold of a singular appeal, rather than the aggregate amount of multiple appeals. This interpretation is founded on the fundamental principle that each appeal represents a distinct cause of action, necessitating separate consideration in determining the applicability of monetary thresholds. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable. Revenue is directed to file 399 appeals instead of 4 appeals, if they are so advised.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of 4 appeals against a total of 399 Bills of Entry

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to 4 appeals filed by the Revenue against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs setting aside assessments made on enhanced value accepted by the importer. The appeals concern a total of 399 Bills of Entry but only 4 appeals were filed. The main issue is whether the 4 appeals are maintainable or if the Revenue should have filed 399 appeals, one for each Bill of Entry. The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the maintainability of the appeals.

The Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that separate appeals should have been filed for each Bill of Entry as per the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Counsel highlighted that the Revenue filed only 4 appeals to circumvent monetary limits on filing appeals. The Counsel cited relevant case laws to support the argument that each Bill of Entry should have a separate appeal. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue relied on an Interim/Miscellaneous Order from the Tribunal to support the maintainability of the 4 appeals.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal focused on Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, which states that the number of appeals filed should correspond to the number of orders-in-original. The Tribunal found that since the Commissioner of Customs passed 4 orders-in-appeal covering 399 Bills of Entry, the Revenue should have filed 399 appeals. The Tribunal referenced a case from the Ahmedabad Bench and a judgment from the Jammu & Kashmir High Court to support its decision. The Tribunal emphasized that each appeal represents a distinct cause of action, necessitating separate consideration based on monetary thresholds.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled that the 4 appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable and directed the Revenue to file 399 appeals if advised to do so. The judgment was pronounced on 18.07.2024, disposing of the four appeals due to their lack of maintainability.