9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the circular dated 02.11.2023. 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is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, then no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT, and if already filed, the same will be withdrawn by the department.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 the same ground. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for such disposal. ' The present appeal filed by the department is not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Board - Appeal dismissed. - HON BLE Sh. S. S. GARG, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the re-assessment of goods at enhanced value and consequently, allowed the appeal filed by the importer/assessee mainly on the following grounds: (i) The Appellate authority noted that the Assessing Authority was referring to contemporaneous imports of similar goods. However, no Bills of Entry have been cited by the Assessing Authority in this regard which was considered for reference. Despite remand directions of the Appellate Authority to issue a speaking order, the Assessing Authority chose not to disclose details of the relied upon contemporaneous data. (ii) The Appellate authority noted that the Importer had produced copies of Outward Remittance Transaction Advice by the Importer to the foreign supplier to substantiate the correctness of the declared value. There was no allegation that these documents were not correct. There was no allegation that the Importer and the foreign supplier were related or any amount over and above the declared value was paid. (iii) The assessing officer is heavily relying upon letters of acceptance, for two bills of entry, in the impugned order. However, once protest has been lodged and the Assessing Officer decided to issue the speaking order, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herance 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 abovementioned 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 that the present appeal does 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh 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. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant-Revenue justified the filing of the appeal on the ground that the department has not instructed him to withdraw the appeal; though he agrees that the duty involved in the appeal 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 the appeal falls 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 Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
