9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 301 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of one appeal filed by Revenue against 13 Bills of Entry - 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 case, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed a common order-in-appeal disposed of the appeals covering 13 Bills of Entry; therefore, as per Rule 6(A) ibid the Appellant-Revenue is required to file 13 appeals challenging each Bill of Entry which is an assessment order in itself. We find that the 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. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. Revenue is directed to file 13 appeals instead of one appeal, if they are so advised.
Issues:
- Maintainability of one appeal filed by Revenue against 13 Bills of Entry Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) related to the assessment of 13 Bills of Entry by the importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the importer's appeal, setting aside the enhanced value of the assessment and directing re-assessment at declared value. The main issue raised was the maintainability of the one appeal filed by the Revenue against 13 Bills of Entry, as the importer had filed separate appeals for each Bill of Entry. The Counsel for the respondent argued that separate appeals should have been filed for each Bill of Entry as per the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Counsel for the respondent cited the Explanation to Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, which mandates filing as many appeals as the number of Orders-in-Original in cases where multiple orders are involved. It was argued that the Revenue's decision to file only one appeal was an attempt to avoid the monetary limit set by the Ministry of Finance for filing appeals. Various case laws were relied upon to support this argument, emphasizing the need for separate appeals in such situations. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue relied on an Interim/Miscellaneous Order passed by the Tribunal in a similar case. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both parties and focused on the interpretation of Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. It was highlighted that the rule allows for one appeal if a common order-in-original is passed for multiple Bills of Entry. However, in this case, since separate appeals were filed by the importer for each Bill of Entry, the Revenue was required to file 13 separate appeals as per the rule. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the Ahmedabad Bench and a judgment by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court to support its conclusion that each appeal represents a distinct cause of action, necessitating separate consideration for monetary thresholds. Based on the interpretation of the rule and the precedents cited, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable and directed them to file 13 separate appeals instead of one. In conclusion, the Tribunal found the appeal by the Revenue to be not maintainable due to the failure to file separate appeals for each of the 13 Bills of Entry. The decision was based on a strict interpretation of the CESTAT Procedure Rules and previous legal precedents.
|
