9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 739 - HC - CustomsMiantainability of appeal - monetary limit involved in the appeal - Refund of additional duty of Customs - time limitation of one year - vires of notification issued under the provisions of Section 25 of the Customs Act,1962 - applicability of of one year specified in para 2(c) of the Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 - application of time limit prescribed in taxation. HELD THAT - In view of instructions dated 30.12.2016 issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs the monetary limit for filing of appeals before this Court has been fixed at ₹ 20 lacs and as such the instant appeal is not maintainable, the amount involved being ₹ 4,00,442/-. Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 130(1) of Customs Act, 1962 against the order allowing refund claim. 2. Substantial questions of law raised in the appeal. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the revenue under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order passed by CESTAT allowing the respondent's claim for a refund of ?4,00,442 on additional duty of Customs. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the claim citing the bar of limitation of one year. The substantial questions of law raised in this appeal include the validity of a notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, the applicability of the one-year time limitation specified in a particular notification, and the importance of time limits in taxation cases to prevent endless delays that could defeat the purpose of the law. 2. During the hearing, the counsel for the appellant acknowledged that the appeal was not maintainable as per the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, which fixed the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court at ?20 lakhs. Since the amount involved in this case was ?4,00,442, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. However, it was noted that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal would remain open for future consideration by the court.
|
