9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h struck down the rule as being ultra vires and also referred to one of the decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2 [ 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - such a course need not be adopted for more than one reasons: firstly, as pointed out that there is no dispute to the fact that the circular instruction issued by the CBEC would prevent the department from pursuing the appeal as the penalty imposed was ₹ 6,33,022/-. If the legal issue with regard to the validity of Rule 8(3)A is left open, then the interest of the revenue will stand protected and at the same time if we hold that the appeal cannot be pursued by the revenue on account of the low tax effect, the interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the condone delay petition and we find that there is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay in preferring the appeal. We also took note of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the revenue cannot pursue this appeal on account of the national litigation policy which states that the monetary limit for pursuing the appeals before the High Courts is ₹ 20 lakhs. Learned counsel for the appellant/revenue would submit that in the circular instruction issued by the CBEC dated 17.08.2011 and the subsequent circular it has been clarified that in judgments relating to the cases where notification/instruction/order has been held illegal or ultra vires have to be contested irrespective of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) Whether the Ld. CESTAT dismissed the appeals filed by the appellantdepartment under monetary limited holding that the amount involved in the case is below 20 lakhs though the issue involved in the case is stayed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in respect of SLP against the order of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of M/s. Indsur Global Ltd. V. UOI? c) Whether the order of the Learned Tribunal is in violation of the principles of the natural justice and without giving proper reasoning in as much as the Learned Tribunal ignored the decisions of Hon ble Apex Court and justification and reasoning of the adjudicating authority in imposing penalty upon the respondent and further proceeding by the Department in Appeal? We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court and an order of stay has been granted. Therefore, it is submitted that the revenue should be permitted to pursue this appeal regardless of the fact that this is far below the monetary limit prescribed in the circular. In our considered view, such a course need not be adopted for more than one reasons: firstly, as pointed out that there is no dispute to the fact that the circular instruction issued by the CBEC would prevent the department from pursuing the appeal as the penalty imposed was ₹ 6,33,022/-. That apart, we find that the subject-matter of challenge before the authority as well as the tribunal was only with regard to the imposition of penalty. It may be true that certain observations have been made by the first appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
