9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1112 - HC - CustomsSeeking to quash the impugned order - Seeking provisional release of goods - allegation of undervaluation was raised against the Petitioner - a bank guarantee has been furnished by the Petitioner for the last more than 14 years which is now lying with the Respondent/Department - HELD THAT - The present dispute would in the opinion of this Court be clearly covered by the circular dated 2nd November 2013 as the amount involved is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Upon hearing both the parties in detail this Court is of the opinion that in view of the said instructions the appeal of the Department before CESTAT deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the appeal filed by the Department before CESTAT stands dismissed in view of the monetary limits. The bank guarantee shall be released within a period of 8 weeks. The Court acknowledges that the appeal was filed before the Instruction dated 2nd November 2023 came into effect and finds no lapse on the part of the Department. However the present order has been passed considering the fact that disregarding the Instruction dated 2nd November 2023 would serve no useful purpose as it would necessitate the restoration of the appeal for a fresh hearing. It would also mean that the Bank Guarantee would continue to be kept alive incurring further costs. Conclusion - Considering the monetary limit of the Instruction would apply even to pending matters the CESTAT would also inevitably follow the same course of action. Thus instead of remanding the matter considering that the monetary value in the Appeal before CESTAT is Rs. 29, 66, 805/- plus Rs. 20 lakhs which is below the limit fixed for CESTAT appeals the appeal before CESTAT deserves to be dismissed on this short ground itself. Petition allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Procedural Errors and Contradictory Orders by CESTAT The legal framework involves the Customs Act, 1962, and the procedural guidelines for appellate tribunals. The Court noted a series of errors in CESTAT's handling of the appeal, initially dismissing the Revenue's appeal on 18th January 2018 due to non-appearance, followed by a recall of the order on 5th April 2019, and finally allowing the appeal on 18th March 2024 without a comprehensive rehearing. The Court found that CESTAT's orders were contradictory, as the logical conclusion of finding the Commissioner's order unsustainable should have been to allow the appeal or remand the matter for a full hearing. The repeated errors and lack of a coherent approach in CESTAT's orders led to procedural irregularities. Issue 2: Applicability of CBIC Monetary Limits The CBIC circular dated 2nd November 2023 sets monetary limits for appeals, stipulating that appeals should not be filed if the amount involved is below Rs. 50 lakhs for CESTAT. The Court considered whether this instruction applied to the present case, where the disputed amount was below the threshold. The Court concluded that the instruction was applicable, even to pending matters, and that continuing the appeal would serve no useful purpose given the monetary limit. The Court emphasized that the appeal should be dismissed on this short ground, thereby avoiding unnecessary prolongation of the dispute and additional costs. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court's significant holdings include:
The Court's reasoning emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural regularity and the practical application of monetary limits to avoid unnecessary litigation. The decision underscores the principle that procedural errors, while significant, may be overshadowed by overarching policy considerations like monetary thresholds set by authoritative instructions.
|
