9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the CESTAT is concerned the monetary limit prescribed is Rs.50 lakhs. Para 3 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 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is less than Rs.50 lakhs, then no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT, and if already filed, the same will be withdrawn by the department. 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 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ert the payment of duty subsequently. The duty differential in the impugned Bill of Entry is Rs. 22,53,057/-. Thereafter, the importer filed appeal against the assessment of Bill of Entry No. 9572003 dated 15.11.2020 with enhanced value before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 09.08.2021 allowed the appeal of the importer against the assessment of said Bill of Entry and set aside the assessment of the said Bill of Entry inter-alia on the following grounds:- (A) The Appellate Authority noted that there is no Speaking Order in the present case and the reasons for rejection of declared value are not known. The Assessing officer had raised query during assessment that value appeared low as compared to contemporaneous import data however no details of such contemporaneous imports were provided. (B) The importer vide letter dated 24 11.2020 submitted that they paid the duty on enhanced value under protest in order to save detention and demurrage charges and requested to pass speaking order u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, no such order was passed. Such predicament of acceptance of enhanced value to save detention and demurrage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4.1 The learned Counsel for the respondent raises the preliminary objection that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the directions/instructions/circulars issued by the Ministry/Board prohibiting the filing of appeals below the stipulated monetary threshold limit of Rs.50 lakhs. 4.2 He further submits that in order to reduce litigation and streamline the process of litigation management, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBEC had introduced National Litigation Management Policy, whereunder, if a matter involved disputed tax less than a specified 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 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation, revision or reference by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs under the provisions of this Chapter. *** (5) Every order or instruction or direction issued by the Board on or after the 20th day of October, 2010, but before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, fixing monetary limits for filing appeal. application, revision or reference shall be deemed to have been issued under sub-section (1), and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) shall apply accordingly. 4.6 He further submits that it has been consistently held by the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court that the Notification/Instruction/Order/Circular issued by the Board is binding 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 case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals. This interpretation is founded on the fundamental principle that each appeal represents a distinct cause of action, necessitating separate consideration in determining the applicability of monetary thresholds. 4.11 He further relies on the following decisions of the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Courts, wherein the Courts have dismissed the appeals of the department due to low tax effect and the said decisions have been passed after considering the Board s instructions issued from time to time: PCC Vs. CMR Nikkei India Pvt Ltd - 2024 (1) TMI 291 SC Commr of CGST vs. Dorf Ketal Pvt Ltd 2019 (366) ELT 66 (Bom.) CCE vs Suvarna Sanjivani Sugarcane Transport 2017 (355) ELT 238 (Bom.) CCE Vs. M/s Kanam Latex Industries (P) Ltd - 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) ..... X 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. 7. Further, we find that the present appeal falls within the instructions as prescribed in the circular dated 02.11.2023. We also note that the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court have been consistently dismissing the appeals of the Revenue if the same are below the monetary limits as prescribed in circulars issued by CBIC from time to time. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that the amount of duty involved in 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. 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 Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Rs. 1 Crore by notification dated 02.11.2023. 3. The instructions direct not only for not filing an appeal but also withdrawal of pending cases as per the revised limit. 4 . Since the subject appeal involves a duty of Rs.40,21,173/- which is the below the monetary limit prescribed and is not covered by the exceptions stipulated in the subject notification this appeal is dismissed on the ground of Low Tax Effect. Further, in the case of CC Vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd - 2024 (1) TMI 580 CESTAT, New Delhi, the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal has held in para 9 10 as under: 9 . From the contents of the aforesaid letter also, we do not think that the present appeal by the Department where the revenue involved is less than 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsistent with the statutory provision. The ratio of the judgment of this Court further precludes the right of the Department to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the Circulars. Therefore, it is clear that so far as the Department is concerned, whatever action it has to take, the same will have to be consistent with the Circular which is in force at the relevant point of time. 10 . It is, thus, evident that the revenue is precluded from challenging the correctness of the circular even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with statutory provisions. It goes further to limit the right of the revenue to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the circular. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the circular is binding on the revenue. 10. In view of our discussion and by following the ratios of the various decisions cited supra, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal filed by the department is not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Board and consequently we dismiss the appeal leaving the question of law, if any, open. (Order pronounced in the court on 25.06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
