9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, wherein department s appeals were dismissed under litigation policy keeping the question of law, if any, open. See VSM IMPEX PVT. LTD. [ 2024 (5) TMI 1404 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] We are of the considered opinion that the present appeals filed by the department are not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC wherein it has been specifically prescribed that no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT below the monetary limit of Rs.50 lakhs and if already filed, will have to be withdrawn and consequently, we dismiss all these appeals under litigation policy without going into the merit of each case. - SH. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SH. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sh. Anurarg Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Shri R.K. Hasija Shri Shivang Puri and Sh. Aman Garg, Advocates for the Respondents ORDER These 9 appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against different impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the assessment made by the department on enhanced value on the basis of acceptance/admission made by the importer/assessee /r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission, he relies on the various decisions : A.R. Fabrics [Final Order No. 51856/2019 dated 19.07.2019 Tribunal New Delhi] Sukhdev Exports Overseas [Final Order No. 50154/2023 dated 21.02.2023 Tribunal New Delhi] Rays Engineering Works [Final Order No. 55828-55830/2024 dated 29.04.2024 Tribunal New Delhi] CMR Nikkei Pvt Ltd [Appeals Nos. C/50875/2020, C/50906/2020, C/50963/2020 Final Order Nos. 58011/2024, 58012/2024, 58013/2024 all dated 19.08.2024 Tribunal New Delhi] Shiv Trading Company [Appeal No. C/52151/2022 Final Order No. 58112/2024 dated 28.08.2024 Tribunal New Delhi] 4.4 He further submits that once the enhanced value has been accepted by the importer and duty is enhanced after payment of differential customs duty, the importer is preculated from challenging the enhancement. It was so held by the Tribunal in the case of Hanuman Prasad Sons [Final Order No. 51584-51619/2020 dated 20.10.2020 CESTAT New Delhi] and subsequently in the case of CCE CGST, Jaipur-I vs. Century Metal Recycling Private Limited 2024 (3) TMI 1245 CESTAT New Delhi. 5.1 On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the present appeals are not maintainable in view of the instru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses are identical and in each of the case, the amount involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed in the instructions dated 02.11.2023. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the present cases are squarely covered under the CBIC s instructions dated 02.11.2023. We also find that none of these cases is falling under the exceptions provided in para 2 of the instructions dated 02.11.2023; though the ld. AR has tried to make out a case that these cases are covered under the exceptions provided in para 2 of the said instructions because the department has challenged the constitutionality and the validity of the Act or Rules, but we do not accept this submission of the ld. AR that the present cases fall under the exceptions. While dismissing the earlier bunch of Revenue s appeals on the identical issue, this Bench has considered various decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, wherein department s appeals were dismissed under litigation policy keeping the question of law, if any, open. It will be pertinent to reproduce the findings of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. VS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 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 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 issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntax 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 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 bind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
