9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department. Reference made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE, SERVICE TAX, NASHIK II COMMISSIONERATE, VERSUS M/S. SUVARNA SANJIVANI SUGARCANE [ 2017 (6) TMI 858 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ], wherein the Hon ble High Court has observed ' There is no issue that the appeals filed by the department in the year 2012 having monitory limits of below 15/20 lakhs. The above provisions and instructions/circulars therefore covers the case of disposal of these appeals on the same ground. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for such disposal.' The present appeals filed by the department are not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Board - All 7appeals dismissed. - HON BLE Sh. S. S. GARG , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE Sh. P. ANJANI KUMAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Shri Pawan Kumar Shri Anurag Kumar , Authorized Representatives For the Respondent : Shri R. K. Hasija Shri Shivang Puri , Advocates ORDER P. ANJANI KUMAR These 7 appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against a common impugned order no. CC(A)/CUS/D-II/ICD/PPG/245- 251/2020-21 dated 06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso to Rule 3(2) exists and as referred in case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2000 (122) ELT 321(SC)); (C) That there is no evidence to prove that any additional consideration was paid to the exporters or parties are related to each other and price is not the sole consideration for sale and fettered by any other conditions/considerations. There is no evidence to prove that the declared price is not the price actually paid or payable. In absence of any supporting evidence to prove under-valuation, assessable value cannot be re-determined; (D) That the onus was on the department to establish that the declared value was undervalued for non-commercial reasons and cited the decision of CESTAT in case Pushpanjali Silks (P) Ltd.; (E) That similar enhancements in the value in the past as in cases of similar imports of fabric have been set aside by the Appellate Authorities and Hon'ble Tribunal. Related case laws were quoted in support of their claim. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue filed these present appeals challenging the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not appreciate that the importer in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lows: 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, modified the earlier instruction dated 17.08.2011 by way of new instructions dated 02.11.2023 wherein the CBIC has fixed the following monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed in the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court: Sl. No. Appellate Forum Monetary Limit 1. Supreme Court Rs. 2 Cr. 2. High Courts Rs. 1 Cr. 3. CESTAT Rs. 50 Lakh However, in paragraph 2 of the instructions dated 02.11.2023, certain exceptions to the monetary limit for filing of the appeal have been provided, such as: i) Where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge. ii) Where Notification/Instruction/Order/Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires. iii) Classification and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an 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 that 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 Metal Recycling Private Limited 2024 (3) TMI 1245 CESTAT New Delhi which is per incuriam as it fails to follow the decisions of various High Courts and the Supreme Court and also the instructions issued by Ministry of Finance/CBIC prescribing the monetary limit below which the appeals shall not be filed. 4.10 He further submits that the decision in the case of Century Metal Recycling Private Limited (supra) is per incuriam for the reasons: (a) Failed to appreciate that the instructions dated 02.11.2023 have been issued under Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein Board has been empowered to issue instructions for the purposes of regulating the filing of appeal. The rulings of the Courts prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. 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 these appeals is less than Rs.50 lakhs. He further submits that it is within the discretion of the Commissioner to withdraw a particular appeal or not. Further, he submits that these appeals fall under exception as mentioned in the Circular dated 02.11.2023. He relies on the interim order passed by the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Century Metal Recycling Private Limited (supra). 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused material on record; and also gone through the various decisions relied upon by both the sides. We find that for reduction of litigation, the CBIC has issued circulars/instructions from time to time instructing the department not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 monitory limits from time to time, for filing appeals by the department before CESTAT/High Court and Supreme Court referring to power conferred by Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 and related provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. * * * * * 6. There is no issue that the appeals filed by the department in the year 2 012 having monitory limits of below 15/20 lakhs. The above provisions and instructions/circulars therefore covers the case of disposal of these appeals on the same ground. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for such disposal. We are, therefore, inclined to do so. 7. However, it is made clear that in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure 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 Excise - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) and Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.) = (1999) 7 SCC 84. If the aforesaid principle is applied to the facts of the present case there does not remain any doubt that the circular issued by the Board is to be considered as binding and cannot be deviated even by the department. On that account also the expression clearing and forwarding agent have to be interpreted in the light of the circular. Similarly, the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. Union of India 2009 (236) ELT 431 (P H) has held in para 9 10 as under: 9. It is well settled that the circulars issued by the Board are bind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
