9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to entertain the recall application. Application dismissed. - CEAC 5/2022 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU Appellant Through: Mr Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Suhani Mathur and Mr Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advs. Respondent Through: Mr Ashish Batra, Adv. ORDER [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.45831/2022 1. This is an application filed on behalf of the appellant, seeking recall of the order dated 24.08.2022. 1.1 Via order dated 24.08.2022, we had closed the appeal, on the ground that the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed in the instruction dated 22.08.2019 issued by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether with penalty and interest or otherwise. However, where the imposition of penalty is the subject matter of dispute and the said penalty exceeds the limit prescribed, then the matter could be litigated further. Similarly, where the subject matter of dispute is the demand of interest and the amount of interest exceeds the prescribed limit, then the matter may require further litigation. 1.3 Adverse judgments relating to the following should be contested irrespective of the amount involved : 1. a) Where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge. 2. b) Where Notification/ Instruction/ Order or Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires. 1.4 Several queries connected with app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs. 66,04,307, and directed appropriation of the amount deposited during investigation i.e., Rs. 25,00,000, as well as the equivalent amount tendered in the form of bank guarantee. 8.1 This order was passed by the adjudicating authority on 30.06.2016. 9. Against the aforementioned order, an appeal was preferred by the respondent with the Tribunal. 9.1 The Tribunal via order dated 05.10.2018, set aside the duty demand, as well as the penalty, imposed on the respondent. 10. Consequently, this order was given effect to, by the department on 15.11.2018. 11. In this backdrop, the respondent moved an application on 18.02.2019, claiming refund of the amount deposited during investigation i.e., Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as noted right at the outset, the quantum of interest fell below the threshold limit prescribed for filing the appeal. 17. It is in these circumstances, that via order dated 24.08.2022, the appeal was closed. 18. The application for recall came up for hearing before this Court on 20.10.2022. 18.1 Since we were told, that a matter raising similar issue was listed before us today i.e., 11.11.2022, this application was also directed to be listed on the same date i.e., 11.11.2022. 19. The revenue, in the interregnum, it appears, had approached the Board, seeking their opinion, as to whether a Special Leave Petition (SLP) should be preferred against the order dated 24.08.2022. 19.1 The Board, in its communication dated 19.10.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
