9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said circular prescribes that in respect of the pending cases before the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court which are below the monetary limits, process of withdrawal of the appeal would be undertaken by the department. It is pertinent to mention here that the amount of duty involved in each of the appeal is below of the threshold limit prescribed in circular dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC wherein it is provided that if the duty amount involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs, then no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT, and if already filed, the same will be withdrawn by the department. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeals filed by the department are not maintainable in view of the instructions issued by the Board and consequently we dismiss all these 13 appeals leaving the question of law, if any, open. - Customs Appeal No. 60290 of 2020 Customs Appeal No. 60291 of 2020 Customs Appeal No. 60292 of 2020 Customs Appeal No. 60293 of 2020 Customs Appeal No. 60294 of 2020 Customs Appeal No. 60295 of 2020 Customs Appeal No. 60296 of 2020 Customs Appeal No. 60297 of 2020 Customs Appeal No. 60298 of 2020 Customs Appeal No. 60299 of 2020 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed the appeal filed by the importer/assesee mainly on the following grounds: (A) that acceptance of enhanced value proposed by the department does not preclude them from challenging the enhancement and cited the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd., [1983(13) ELT 1556 (SC)]. (B) that none of the grounds enumerated in Rule 12 of CVR 2007 existed to merit rejection of declared value and there is no allegation that the assessee had paid any additional amount to the foreign supplier. (C) that manner of assessment is arbitrary and illegal for not making the assessment on the declared value as envisaged under Section 14 of the Act read with CVR 2007. They placed reliance on the decision of the Apex court in the case of South India Television (P) Ltd., [2007 (214) ELT3 (SC)] to plead that transaction value cannot be rejected without giving cogent reasons. (D) that the Adjudicating Authority has erred is not appreciating the fact that reliance placed on the description given in NIDB data was wrong as Rule 5 of CVR, 2007 requires fulfilment of several criteria such as quantity in comparable commercial transaction, GSM, quality, etc., and without having all these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied amount, then the officers were not required to challenge such orders before the CESTAT, the High Courts or the Supreme Court and if they have already challenged, then they were required to withdraw those appeals which were lesser than the prescribed monetary limit and pending before various tribunals. 4.3 He further submits that in furtherance of these objectives, the Ministry of Finance introduced the monetary limit instructions on 20.10.2010 which was revised on 17.08.2011 directing its officers fixing a monetary limit below which appeal shall not be filed in any Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. The monetary limits which were prescribed in the instructions dated 17.08.2011 were as follows: Sl. No. Appellate Forum Monetary Limit 1. CESTAT Rs. 5,00,000/- 2. High Courts Rs. 10,00,000/- 3. Supreme Court Rs. 25,00,000/- 4.4 He further submits that the only exception where the above-mentioned monetary limit would not apply were cases where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge or where the notification/instruction/order/circular has been held illegal or ultra vires. Thereafter, the Ministry of Finance on 02.11.2023, modifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on the department. 4.7 He further submits that it is not open to the department not to follow the instructions dated 02.11.2023. He refers to the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commr of CGST vs. Dorf Ketal Pvt Ltd 2019 (366) ELT 66 (Bom.), wherein the Hon ble High Court has held that the Circular is issued in exercise of powers under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which pertains to appeal not to be filed in certain cases, has a statutory force. 4.8 The learned Counsel further submits that the Ministry of Finance clearly stated in its instructions dated 02.11.2023 that it does not want to pursue any litigation before the CESTAT where an appeal involves duty of less than 50 lakhs, the delegatee/agent of the Ministry of Finance cannot seek to file an appeal in defiance of and contrary to the instructions of its master i.e. the Ministry of Finance. 4.9 He further submits the present appeals do fall within the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance. He also submits that the department is wrongly justifying the maintainability of the present appeals by relying upon the Miscellaneous Order passed in the case of CCE CGST, Jaipur-I vs. Century M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td - 2023 (11) TMI 1167 SC Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. M/s Atlas Mercantile Pvt Ltd - 2023 (11) TMI 1178 SC CC (Import) Vs. M/s Gems Nuts And Products Exports Co. Pvt Ltd - 2023 (11) TMI 1180 SC CC Chennai-II Vs. M/s Mitsubishi Electric India Pvt Ltd - 2024 (D) TMI 202 SC CC Vs. FJM Cylinders Pvt Ltd - 2024 (2) TMI 1325 Delhi High Court Commissioner of Customs Vs. Disha Tulsiani, Ashok Kumar Tahlani, Disha Tulsiani, Nirmal Tulsiani - 2024 (3) TMI 1058 Allahabad High Court Commissioner of CE CGST, Jammu Vs. M/s Narbada Industries, CEA No. 10 of 2020 (J K High Court) CC Vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd - 2024 (1) TMI 580 CESTAT, New Delhi. CC Vs. Kulcip Medicines P Ltd 2009 (14) STR 608 (P H) Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. UOI 2009 (236) ELT 431 (P H) CC, Jamnagar (Prev) Vs. J M Baxi And Company - Customs Appeal No. 10581 of 2021-DB, CESTAT Ahmedabad CC, Ahmedabad Vs. Killick Nixon Ltd - Customs Appeal No. 12912 Of 2014-DB, CESTAT Ahmedabad 5.1 On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant-Revenue justified the filing of the appeals on the ground that the department has not instructed him to withdraw the appeals; though he agrees that the duty involved in each of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in circular dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC wherein it is provided that if the duty amount involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs, then no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT, and if already filed, the same will be withdrawn by the department. 9. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CCE vs Suvarna Sanjivani Sugarcane Transport 2017 (355) ELT 238 (Bom.), wherein the Hon ble High Court has observed in para 9 as under : 9. The Division Bench of this Court at Panaji (Goa) of which one of us (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) was a party, while dealing with Sec. 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sec. 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the aspect of reduction of litigation referring to monetary limits from time to time for filing appeals by the department in a case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Sesa Goa Ltd., 2017 (3) Bom.C.R. 470 has reiterated as under: 4. Apart from the above position of law the Ministry of Finance issued certain resolutions of excise and customs from time to time and has issued instructions/circulars with clear intention to support the Government cases for reduction of litigation referring to the mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n what has been fixed for filing an appeal to CESTAT would be maintainable and hence the same needs to be dismissed on that ground itself. 10. The learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out to an order of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Rajasthan Versus Sagar Suitings Pvt. Ltd - (2023) 3 Centax 147 (S.C.), where civil appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as the tax amount involved was less than the prescribed limit as specified in the notification for the Revenue to appeal and left the question of law open. We feel that the Instructions have been issued with the object to reduce the litigation involving meagre amount of revenue and where no substantial question of law of the nature specified arises for consideration. Further, in the case of CC Vs. Kulcip Medicines P Ltd 2009 (14) STR 608 (P H), the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana has observed in para 12 as under: 12. We are further of the view that the circulars issued by the Board are binding and meant for adoption for the purposes of bringing uniformity. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
