9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the Appeal No. C/60443/2020 are taken up as a lead case. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the importer/respondent had imported Mix Lot of Polyester Knitted Fabrics by filing Bill of Entry No. 3889693 dated 01.07.2019 at ICD Sonepat and self-assessed customs duty of Rs.4,27,187.2/- (including IGST Rs.6,24,761/-) on the declared transaction value of Rs.26,69,919/-. The said Bill of Entry was assessed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD Sonepat at higher value than the declared value. The total re-assessed customs duty comes to Rs.8,51,653.2/- (total including IGST Rs. 12,49,801/-) on re-determined value of Rs.53,22,832/- by the department and thus, the differential customs duty in Bill of Entry No. 3889693 dated 01.07.2019 comes to Rs.6,25,040/-. The importer challenged the re-assessment of the duty and filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, who vide the impugned order set aside the re-assessment of goods at enhanced value and restored the self-assessment at the declared value and consequently, allowed the appeal filed by the importer/assessee/respondent by relying upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said instructions have been issued under Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 131BA of the Act empowers the CBIC to issue instructions fixing monetary limits for the purpose of regulating the filing of appeal. Relevant extract of Section 131BA of the Act is reproduced herein below: "131BA : Appeal not to be filed in certain cases. (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue orders or instructions or directions fixing such monetary limits, as it may deem fit, for the purposes of regulating the filing of appeal, application, 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." By way of instructions dated 02.11.2023, the CBIC has fixed the following monetary limits below which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 which are reproduced herein below: "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 file the appeal and in some cases, if it has already filed, not to press the appeal before higher authorities i.e. the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court as the case may be, where the duty amount involved is below the minimum threshold limits respectively prescribed in such circulars. In the present cases, we are concerned with the CBIC's latest circular dated 02.11.2023, 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. These instructions have been issued in exercise of its power under Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962. The perusal of the circular cited supra shows that the same prescribes monetary limit below which the department shall not file appeal before the CESTAT, the High Courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 specific provision of Section 131BA(2) as reproduced and emphasized above it is necessary to observe that once the appeals are disposed of in view of the above circumstances, based upon such circulars/instructions "it shall not preclude such Commissioner of Customs from filing any appeal, application, revision or reference in any other case involving the same or similar issues or questions of law. Further, in the case of CC Vs. FJM Cylinders Pvt Ltd - 2024 (2) TMI 1325 Delhi High Court, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed in para 2, 3 & 4 as under: 2. Subject Appeal is covered by notification dated 2.11.2023 read with notification dated 17.08.2011 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Custom on the subject "Reduction of Government litigation- providing monetary limit for filing appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered 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 binding and aims at adoption of uniform products. In that regard reliance has been rightly placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. (supra) and such circulars are binding on the department. Placing reliance on earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of CCE v. Usha Martin Industries, 1997 (94) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.) = (1997) 7 SCC 47; Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE, 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) = (1996) 10 SCC 387; CCE v. Jayant Dalal (P) Ltd., 1996 (88) E.L.T. 638 (S.C.) = (1997) 10 SCC 402 and CCE v. Kores (India) Ltd., 1997 (89) E.L.T. 441 (S.C.) = (1997) 10 SCC 338, Hon'ble the Supreme Court concluded in para 5 as under :- "5. It is clear from the abovesaid pronouncements of this Court that, apart from the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
