2018 (8) TMI 1097 - HC - Central Excise

Monetary amount involved in the appeal - Held that - The appellant did not dispute the fact that the amount involved in the present appeal is ₹ 10,00,000/- - As the amount involved is less than the limit prescribed in the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (Judicial Cell) dated 11.07.2018, the present appeal be dismissed as not maintainable. Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Substantial questions of law raised regarding the impugned order; Dispute over the reasoning and validity of the Tribunal's decision; Allegations of errors in judgment; Lack of mention of goods' contents on weighment slip; Evidence required for proving clandestine removal; Compliance with legal principles in the Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the challenge to the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in the present appeal. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the impugned order dated 24.04.2017. The first issue questioned the validity of setting aside a well-reasoned original order, deeming it as perverse and untenable in the eyes of the law. The second issue focused on the Tribunal's alleged grave error in linking the absence of goods' contents on the weighment slip to the confirmation of the demand against the respondent. The third issue raised concerns about the impugned order being based on assumptions and presumptions, potentially warranting its dismissal. Moreover, the fourth issue highlighted the Tribunal's failure to recognize that mathematical precision in evidence is not mandatory to prove clandestine removal, indicating a possible error in judgment.

The High Court further examined whether the impugned order was against the settled position of law, emphasizing the need for legal compliance and adherence to established principles. Notably, the appellant did not contest that the amount involved in the appeal was less than the limit specified in a Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable based on the prescribed limit, leading to the dismissal of applications for condonation of delay in filing or refiling the appeal. The judgment underscored the importance of procedural requirements and statutory limits in determining the maintainability of appeals before the Court.