9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 558 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - validity of circular dated 22.08.2019 and earlier circular dated 17.08.2011 - HELD THAT - The petition preferred by the Department was dismissed in the light of the monetary limit fixed by the circular under reference in the aforesaid case. Against the judgment of the Division Bench, a special leave to appeal was preferred before the Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS PARTH PHARMACHEM INDUSTRIES 2017 (4) TMI 84 - SC ORDER and the Hon ble Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave to appeal by an order dated 17.10.2016. Therefore, taking into account the aforesaid judgment, the circular dated 22.08.2019, read with circular dated 17.08.2011, as the case does not fall under the exceptional case i.e., Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Monetary limit for maintaining appeal under circular dated 22.08.2019. 2. Challenge to constitutional validity of Act or Rule. 3. Interpretation of judgment from High Court of Gujarat regarding excise duty payment. 4. Application of circular dated 17.08.2011 on monetary limits for appeals. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case revolves around the monetary limit for maintaining an appeal as per the circular dated 22.08.2019. The respondent argued that the appeal is not maintainable as the amount involved is less than ?1 crore, citing the circular. The appellant, however, contended that the judgment is based on a High Court of Gujarat decision regarding excise duty payment, which is currently stayed by the Supreme Court. The Court held that as the constitutional validity challenge was absent and the amount was below ?1 crore, the appeal was not maintainable. 2. The respondent relied on a judgment from a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in a different case to support their argument. The Gujarat High Court decision emphasized the importance of adhering to monetary limits for appeals, especially when the constitutional validity of a statute is not in question. The Court considered this precedent while deciding the present case and dismissed the appeal based on the monetary limit set by the circular. 3. The interpretation of the judgment from the High Court of Gujarat regarding the payment of excise duty was crucial in this case. The appellant sought to rely on this judgment to support their argument, highlighting that the Supreme Court had stayed the decision. However, the Court focused on the absence of a challenge to the constitutional validity of any provision of the Act or Rule, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the monetary limit criterion. 4. The application of the circular dated 17.08.2011, which set monetary limits for appeals, played a significant role in the Court's decision. The judgment from the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat, which was referred to in the case, emphasized the importance of adhering to these monetary limits unless the constitutional validity of a statute was in question. The dismissal of the appeal was primarily based on the adherence to the monetary limits specified in the circular, as highlighted by the Gujarat High Court decision. In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeals based on the monetary limit criterion specified in the circular dated 22.08.2019, emphasizing the importance of adhering to such limits unless the constitutional validity of a statute is under challenge. The Court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of relevant judgments, including those from the High Court of Gujarat, regarding excise duty payment and the application of monetary limits for appeals.
|
