2024 (11) TMI 411 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of the one appeal filed by the Revenue against 7 Bills of Entry - HELD THAT - Here, it is pertinent to consider the relevant 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 7 Bills of Entry; therefore, as per Rule 6(A) ibid the Appellant-Revenue is required to file 7 appeals challenging each Bill of Entry which is an assessment order in itself. 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 7 appeals instead of one appeal, if they are so advised.

Summary

Issues:
Maintainability of one appeal against 7 Bills of Entry.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the assessment of 7 Bills of Entry. The importer had initially accepted the re-assessment of the goods but later contested it, leading to the appeal. The main contention raised was whether the Revenue's decision to file one appeal against 7 Bills of Entry was in compliance with the relevant rules and procedures.

The Counsel for the respondent argued that separate appeals should have been filed for each Bill of Entry, as per the Explanation to Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. This rule mandates that the number of appeals should correspond to the number of orders-in-original in cases where multiple orders are involved. The Counsel cited various case laws to support this argument, emphasizing the importance of following procedural requirements.

On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Appellant-Revenue relied on a previous interim order by the Tribunal to support their position. However, the Tribunal carefully considered the submissions from both parties and focused on the interpretation of Rule 6(A) to determine the maintainability of the appeal against 7 Bills of Entry. The rule clearly states that if a common order-in-appeal is passed for multiple Bills of Entry, separate appeals should be filed for each order-in-original.

By analyzing precedents such as the CMR Nikkie India Pvt Ltd case and the CGST & CE, Jammu vs. M/s Narbada Industries case, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable in its current form. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to file 7 separate appeals, one for each Bill of Entry, in accordance with the procedural rules and legal principles discussed.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled that the appeal was not maintainable in its current state and instructed the Revenue to file 7 separate appeals as necessary. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant rules, precedents, and legal interpretations, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance in such matters.