9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Delhi, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the assessment made by the department on enhanced value as per the acceptance/admission by the importer/assessee/respondent. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is identical and there is only one importer/assessee /respondent, therefore, all 26 appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. For the sake of convenience, we may take the facts of the Appeal No. C/60711/2023 as a lead case. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent had imported impugned goods vide Bill of Entry No. 5900420 dated 19.10.2021 at ICD, Panchi Gujaran, Sonepat, Haryana by declaring the goods as 'lot of non textured polyester fabrics/polyester knitted fabrics' and self assessed the duty of Rs. 2,17,627/-. The said Bill of Entry was re-assessed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs at higher assessable value than the declared assessable value and the total re-assessed duty came to Rs. 3,48,091/- on the impugned goods. As per the department, the importer at the time of clearance accepted the value enhancement and gave in writing the acceptance of re-assessed value on the ground that the value dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as follows: Sl. No. Appellate Forum Monetary Limit 1. CESTAT Rs. 5,00,000/- 2. High Courts Rs. 10,00,000/- 3. Supreme Court Rs. 25,00,000/- 4.4 He further submits that the only exception where the abovementioned monetary limit would not apply were cases where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge or where the notification/instruction/order/circular has been held illegal or ultra vires. Thereafter, the Ministry of Finance on 02.11.2023, modified the earlier instruction dated 17.08.2011 by way of new instructions dated 02.11.2023 wherein the CBIC has fixed the following monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed in the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court: Sl. No. Appellate Forum Monetary Limit 1. Supreme Court Rs. 2 Cr. 2. High Courts Rs. 1 Cr. 3. CESTAT Rs. 50 Lakh However, in paragraph 2 of the instructions dated 02.11.2023, certain exceptions to the monetary limit for filing of the appeal have been provided, such as, i) Where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge. ii) Where Notification/Instruction/Order/Circular has been held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any litigation before the CESTAT where an appeal involves duty of less than 50 lakhs, the delegatee/agent of the Ministry of Finance cannot seek to file an appeal in defiance of and contrary to the instructions of its master i.e. the Ministry of Finance. 4.9 He further submits the present appeals do fall within the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance. He also submits that the department is wrongly justifying the maintainability of the present appeals by relying upon the Miscellaneous Order passed in the case of CCE & CGST, Jaipur-I vs. Century Metal Recycling Private Limited - 2024 (3) TMI 1245 CESTAT New Delhi which is per incuriam as it fails to follow the decisions of various High Courts and the Supreme Court and also the instructions issued by Ministry of Finance/CBIC prescribing the monetary limit below which the appeals shall not be filed. 4.10 He further submits that the decision in the case of Century Metal Recycling Private Limited (supra) is per incuriam for the reasons: (a) Failed to appreciate that the instructions dated 02.11.2023 have been issued under Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein Board has been empowered to issue instructions for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 (J&K High Court) * CC Vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd - 2024 (1) TMI 580 CESTAT, New Delhi. * CC Vs. Kulcip Medicines P Ltd - 2009 (14) STR 608 (P&H) * Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. UOI - 2009 (236) ELT 431 (P&H) * CC, Jamnagar (Prev) Vs. J M Baxi And Company - Customs Appeal No. 10581 of 2021-DB, CESTAT Ahmedabad * CC, Ahmedabad Vs. Killick Nixon Ltd - Customs Appeal No. 12912 Of 2014-DB, CESTAT Ahmedabad 5.1 On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant-Revenue justified the filing of the appeals on the ground that the department has not instructed him to withdraw the appeals; though he agrees that the duty involved in each of these appeals is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. He further submits that it is within the discretion of the Commissioner to withdraw a particular appeal or not. Further, he submits that these appeals fall under exception as mentioned in the Circular dated 02.11.2023. He relies on the interim order passed by the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Century Metal Recycling Private Limited (supra). 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused material on record; and also gone through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 issue that the appeals filed 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 binding and cannot be deviated even by the department. On that account also the expression „clearing and forwarding agent' have to be interpreted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
