2024 (11) TMI 134 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of the one appeal filed by the Revenue against 93 Bills of Entry - as submitted the importer/respondent had preferred separate appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of each Bill of Entry and the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the said appeals filed by the importer/respondent in respect of the assessment of 93 Bills of Entry by way of one Order-in-Appeal HELD THAT - As per Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, it is clear 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 93 Bills of Entry; therefore, as per Rule 6(A) ibid the Appellant-Revenue is required to file 93 appeals challenging each Bill of Entry which is an assessment order in itself. As 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. We find that in the case of CGST CE, Jammu vs. M/s Narbada Industries 2022 (5) TMI 1361 - JAMMU KASHMIR HIGH COURT while interpreting the National Litigation Policy and specifically the phrase monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed , in its aforementioned pronouncement lucidly elucidated that the said phrase pertains to the monetary threshold of a singular appeal, rather than the aggregate amount of multiple appeals. This interpretation is founded on the fundamental principle that each appeal represents a distinct cause of action, necessitating separate consideration in determining the applicability of monetary thresholds. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. Revenue is directed to file 93 appeals instead of one appeal, if they are so advised.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi concerning the assessment of 93 Bills of Entry.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the appeal
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi, relating to the assessment of 93 Bills of Entry. The importer/assessee had imported goods by declaring them as metal scrap and self-assessed duty. The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner re-assessed the Bills of Entry at a higher value, leading to a dispute on the duty amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the importer's appeal, setting aside the enhanced value and ordering a re-assessment at the declared value. The Revenue challenged this decision by filing a single appeal against all 93 Bills of Entry.

Analysis:
The Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the single appeal filed by the Revenue against 93 Bills of Entry. He argued that separate appeals should have been filed for each Bill of Entry as per the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Counsel cited relevant case laws to support the contention that the Department should have filed multiple appeals. The Authorized Representative for the Appellant-Revenue, on the other hand, relied on an interim order from the Tribunal to support the appeal's maintainability.

Rule Interpretation:
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, which states that the number of appeals filed should correspond to the number of orders-in-original. In this case, since a single order-in-appeal covered all 93 Bills of Entry, the Tribunal found that the Revenue should have filed 93 separate appeals. The Tribunal also referenced a decision from the Ahmedabad Bench and a judgment from the Jammu & Kashmir High Court to support this interpretation.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments and rule interpretation, the Tribunal concluded that the single appeal filed by the Revenue against 93 Bills of Entry was not maintainable. The Revenue was directed to file 93 separate appeals if they wished to challenge each Bill of Entry individually. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of as not maintainable.

This detailed analysis highlights the key points of contention, legal interpretations, and the ultimate decision regarding the maintainability of the appeal in the case involving the assessment of 93 Bills of Entry.