2018 (10) TMI 1276 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - N/N. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.3.2006 - Held that - The monetary limits, involved in the instant case, being well below the amount fixed in the instruction dated 11.7.2018, we hold that the Department cannot pursue this appeals - appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's error in ignoring conditions of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
2. Tribunal's error in relying on precedents pre-Notification No.5/2006-CE
3. Tribunal's error in upholding Commissioner (Appeals) order despite factual differences

Analysis:
1. The appeals by the Revenue challenged the Tribunal's order based on substantial questions of law, including the Tribunal's alleged error in disregarding the conditions specified in Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Senior Panel Counsel for the appellant presented a letter from the Deputy Commissioner (Legal), instructing to withdraw the appeals due to monetary limits below the threshold set by the Board's Circular of 11.7.2018. As the refund claims involved were below the specified amount, the Court held that the Department could not pursue the appeals.

2. The Tribunal's alleged error in relying on precedents decided before the passing of Notification No.5/2006-CE was also raised as a substantial question of law. Despite this issue, the Court, considering the monetary limits and the instruction to withdraw the appeals, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The letter produced by the Senior Panel Counsel on 17.8.2018 was placed on record, and the Court made it clear that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were left open for future consideration.

3. Another issue raised in the appeals was the Tribunal's alleged error in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order, even though the case laws relied upon were factually different from the present case. The Court's decision to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn due to monetary limits prevented a detailed examination of this issue. Therefore, the question of whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order based on factual differences remains open for future adjudication.