9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that a portion of the said amount was adjusted at the instance of the petitioner herein and therefore before the Tribunal, the disputed amount was less than Rs.10,00,000/. The appeal before the Tribunal was by the revenue and as the assessee had accepted the demand and had got a small portion of the demand even adjusted to make the disputed amount less than Rs.10,00,000/-, the appeal was not maintainable. The Revenue could not have maintained the appeal before the Tribunal having regard to the extant Circular/Instructions dated 17.12.2015 which bears the threshold limit of Rs.10,00,000/- or above. The object and purpose of issuing these instructions is to reduce litigation by the Revenue as a measure of sound litigation policy. Despite th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eview Petition (C) No.33/2019. While considering the Review Petition, a three-Judge Bench of this Court issued notice by order dated 17.01.2019. That is how this case is listed before this Bench. We have heard learned counsel Dr. S. K. Sarkar for the petitioner and learned senior counsel, Mr. Rupesh Kumar for the respondent-Department and perused the material on record including the impugned orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal ) as well as by the High Court and this Court. The genesis of the controversy in this case arises from order dated 14.09.2016 passed as Final Order No.70822-70823/2016 by the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal Nos.C.3381/ 3382/2012-CU(DB) filed by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instructions dated 17.12.2015, categorically stated that if the monetary limit is below Rs.10,00,000/- then the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, the differential amount was Rs.9,97,818/- only which is well below Rs.10,00,000/- and therefore, the Revenue could not have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, our attention was also drawn to the earlier Instructions F. No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC, 17.08.2011, wherein the threshold limit for filing an appeal before Tribunal at that point of time was Rs.5,00,000/-. However, for ascertaining whether the matter was covered within the aforementioned limit paragraph 2 of the said Circular is illustra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xxx xxx 4. Several queries connected with application of monetary limits have been raised by the field formations which were considered by the Board and are being clarified as below: Issues Clarifications (a)Whether duty involved mentioned in the instruction dated 20.10.2010 refers to duty outstanding to be collected or the total duty demanded for deciding the threshold limit prescribed therein. In a case where a part of the duty demanded is not disputed and is paid and the outstanding duty under dispute is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the Board, no appeal shall be filed. In other words, monetary limit shall apply on the disputed duty and not on the total duty demanded in a case. (b)Whether monetary limits would apply to case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute payable, the interest and penalty payable had also to be included and by taking those categories of payments also, the threshold amount had to be determined which is not a correct submission which was made by the Revenue before the High Court. But the High Court having accepted that submission held that the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal and therefore, remanded the matter to be considered on merits which is assailed before this Court. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that what has to be ascertained in the instant case is the duty or tax which was actually payable by the assessee which exceeded the threshold amount. That, in the instant case there was a mis-declaration of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal was not maintainable. In the circumstances, the Revenue could not have maintained the appeal before the Tribunal having regard to the extant Circular/Instructions dated 17.12.2015 which bears the threshold limit of Rs.10,00,000/- or above. The object and purpose of issuing these instructions is to reduce litigation by the Revenue as a measure of sound litigation policy. Despite the Circular/Instruction the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal as well as before the High Court assailing the Tribunal s order. In the circumstances, we find that the High Court was not right in entertaining the appeal and remanding the matter to the Tribunal to consider the same on merits by accepting the contention of the respondent herein tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
