9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file any appeal involving an amount of less than Rs. 50.00 Lakhs, before CESTAT. It is mentioned that that there are number of appeals of Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. Learned Counsel for Assessee has requested directions to the Department to withdraw the impugned appeal in view of the aforementioned CBIC Instructions. 2. Learned Authorized Representative while rebutting these submissions has mentioned that in the present appeals, the Respondent-Assessee has filed the cross objection and the objection of Monetary Limit was not raised therein. It is impressed upon that raising a new issue in the hearing before the bench is not permissible. Otherwise also period of 45 days as prescribed under Section 129 (A) (4) of Customs Act, 1962 is already over. Learned Authorized Representative has relied upon the decision of Lohiya Machines Limited vs. Collector reported as 1986 (25) ELT 225, with the mention that the appeal against the said decision was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also mentioned that the issue of monetary limit cannot be called as question of law. 3. Learned Authorized Representative further mentioned that the threshold limit in each appeal has dropped ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Government are concerned, they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. Circular and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes. In this regard, Board had issued a Circular No. 1006/13/2015-CX, dated 21-9-2015 vide F. No. 96/90/2015-CX, which reiterate the binding nature of circulars/instructions and also discuss the extent of binding effect thereof. However, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate Vs. CBDT (1987) 166 ITR 88 (Del) has observed as under: "It is clear that while a circular of the Board will be binding upon an Income-tax Officer in matters relating to the general interpretation of any provisions of the statute, the circular cannot override judicial decisions rendered on the statute. In fields which are covered by judicial decisions, the circular will not be conclusive even so far as the Income-tax Officer is concerned. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated April 3, 1982, cannot constitute a ground for this court assuming jurisdiction in respect of a matter which clearly falls ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision for the benefit of the assessee in certain specified circumstances. So long as the circular is in force, it aids the uniform and proper administration and application of the provisions of the Act." In the light of these decisions, we hold that the circulars and notifications issued by the Department are binding on department but not on the courts including the quasi judicial authorities including the tribunal. 6. From the above discussion, it is clear that the Instruction/Circulars are mandatory/binding vis-a-vis the Departmental Officers are concerned. However, vis-a-vis the Superior Courts including Tribunals, the objective is different. The Tribunal as well as Superior Courts have to prioritize the interest of justice. It is the mandate for the Courts to see that none shall be condemned un-heard and that none shall be pre-judicially affected. The Courts/Adjudicating Authorities have to see whether any Circular/Instruction of the department is sufficient enough to fulfil the requisite interest of justice in the given set of circumstances. 7. Now reverting to the facts of the present case, we observe that the present appeal is with respect to one among 30 Bills of Entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter reassessing the value of the imported goods. The value as was declared being self assessed by the appellant has been accepted by Commissioner (Appeals) and all the 30 Appeals filed by the importer-respondents as were filed with respect to each Bill of Entry are allowed with consequential relief, by one common order with order No. 59-115 dated 05.04.2019. 11. We observe that the said order is in sheer violation of Section 128A (3) (b) (ii) of Customs Act 1962. The provisions read as follows:- 1............. 2.............. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as he thinks [just and proper as follows: (a) confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against; or (b) referring the matter back to the adjudicating authority with directions for fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, in the following cases, namely: - (i)where an order or decision has been passed without following the principles of natural justice; or (ii)where no order or decision has been passed after re-assessment under section 17; or (iii)where an order of refund under section 27 has been issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andate. Hence it cannot be allowed to attain finality due to Departmental Instructions or Clarifications which have to be within the four corners of parent legislation. The circular was for department to follow and not for the assessee to rely upon, especially when the self assessment of assessee is under shadow of doubt, more so when the department is being denied the proper opportunity to defend its stance. Above all, there cannot be any intention of the Department to issue any instruction which is detrimental to its own interest. As observed above, the only intention of the impugned instruction for fixing monetary limit is to reduce the Department litigation. The instruction cannot be enforced at the cost of prejudice to the issuing authority itself. Rule of law requires a fair opportunity of being heard even to Government Authorities/Department herein. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the decision of Sanjivani Non-ferros Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur 2019 (365) ELT 3 (S.C.) as in that case, the enhancement has not under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. 15. We also observe that instead of counting each Bill of Entry for the purpose of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
