FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT BY REVENUE BELOW THRESHOLD AMOUNT

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Vide Instruction No. F.No. 390/Misc/163/2010-11, dated 17.08.2011 the Board has fixed the monetary limits below which the appeal shall not be filed before the Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court.  The Board has fixed the limit for filing appeal before Supreme Court is ₹ 25,00,000/-.  The instructions further clarified that the Commissionerates shall not send proposal to the Board for filing Civil Appeal or Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court in a case involving duty up to ₹ 25 lakhs, whether with penalty and interest or otherwise.    However, where the imposition of penalty is the subject matter of dispute and the said penalty exceeds the limit prescribed, then the matter could be litigated further.  Similarly, where the subject matter of dispute is the demand of interest and the amount of interest exceeds the prescribed limit, then the matter may require further litigation.

Adverse judgments relating to the following should be contested irrespective of the amount involved:

• Where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge.
• Where Notification/ Instruction/ Order or Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires.

It is further clarified that-

• 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;
• the monetary limits being prescribed by the Board would apply to cases of refund as well;
• The limit specified herein will not be applicable to application filed before the Joint Secretary (Revision Application);
• in all cases of audit objections accepted by the Department, while protective demands may continue to be issued but the same would be subjected to the monetary limits for filing appeal in the Tribunal, High Courts and the Supreme Court.

This revision of monetary limit came into effect from 01.09.2011.

Vide File No. 276/312/2015-CX-8A, dated 15.05.2015 the Board has decided that no SLP against the High Court's order can be filed before the Supreme Court in case the amount involved is below the threshold limit as prescribed in the said Instruction dated 17.08.2011 except in two categories of cases. Therefore, the Board directed the authorities below that the provisions relating to monetary limit for filing SLPs should be complied with, before sending the proposals.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune against the order of CESTAT Pudumjee Agro Industries Limited V. Commissioner OF CUSTOMS, PUNE. [2007 (2) TMI 515 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]  The Tribunal held that that when imported waste paper was found to be stock lot of light weight coated waste paper in rolls, the prayer for mutilation of goods so as to bring them into definition of waste paper under Heading 47.07 of Customs Tariff is grantable and the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, is available thereafter.   The Supreme Court dismissed the said appeal on 30.09.2015 on the ground that the tax effect is negligible.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore – III against the CESTAT final order ANAND CALENDERING COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-III [2006 (2) TMI 371 - CESTAT, BANGALORE].  The Tribunal in this case held that mere process of calendaring without process of decatizing not amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944.  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on 02.09.2015 on the ground that the tax effect is only ₹ 3,45,000/- which is below the threshold limit for filing appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai against CESTAT order (Commissioner V. Hindustan Gas & Industries Limited).  The Tribunal in this case held that the impugned goods subjected to a process quite common in metallurgical industry and used in recovery of metal.  Since concentrate is covered under term ‘ore’ as given in Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 26 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and manufactured goods from concentrate not subjected to any excise duty, imported goods used for recovery of that manufactured goods, would not be subject to CVD.  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on 23.09.2015 on the ground that the tax effect involved in this appeal is negligible.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin against CESTAT order Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital Limited V. Commissioner [2006 (7) TMI 410 - CESTAT, BANGALORE].  The Tribunal held that the ‘Hospital Operation Theatre Lamps’ are classifiable under sub-heading 9018.19 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as ‘other electro mechanical apparatus’ and not under sub-heading 8539.39 as ‘other discharge lamp’. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on 01.10.2015 on the ground that the tax effect involved in the appeal is negligible.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Isibars Limited against the CESTAT order ISIBARS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-VI [2006 (9) TMI 316 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]  The Tribunal held that the invoices showed difference in valuation without in any way differentiating description of products.   No document produced to substantiate that scrap sent to sister unit is of different quality.   Valuation arrived by applying valuation rules by lower authorities was held to be correct.  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the tax effect involved in this appeal is negligible.