9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.S.G. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Advitiya Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Swayam Prabha Das, Adv. ORDER REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 33/2019 By order dated 30.10.2018, this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition No.22172 of 2017 having not found any legal and valid ground for interference. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred this Review Petition (C) No.33/2019. While considering the Review Petition, a three-Judge Bench of this Court issued notice by order dated 17.01.2019. That is how this case is listed before this Bench. We have heard learned counsel Dr. S. K. Sarkar for the petitioner and learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the assessee approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition. This Court by order dated 30.10.2018 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, this Review Petition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the respondent-Department, we are of the view of that the Review Petition deserves to be allowed. This is for the reason that at the relevant point of time, the instructions dated 17.12.2015, categorically stated that if the monetary limit is below Rs.10,00,000/- then the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, the differential amount was R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject 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. The table and queries indicating the monetary limit reads as under: "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/-" xxx xxx xxx "4. Several queries connected with application of monetary limits have been raised by the field formations which were considered by the Board and are being clarified as below: Issues Clarifications (a)Whether duty involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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." By Circular Instruction dated 17.12.2015, the monetary threshold limit was enhanced as under: "S.No. Appellate Forum Monetary Limit 1. CESTAT Rs.10,00,000/- 2. High Courts Rs.15,00,000/- 3. Supreme Court Rs.25,00,000/-" Further, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the main contention raised by the Revenue was that apart from the duty or tax under dispute payable, the interest and penalty payable had also to be included and by taking those categories of payments also, the threshold amount had to be determined which is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard to the manner in which the duty or tax is demanded. It may be that in the instant case, there was a misdeclaration of goods and the duty demanded was Rs.10,91,500/-. However, the fact remains that a portion of the said amount was adjusted at the instance of the petitioner herein and therefore before the Tribunal, the disputed amount was less than Rs.10,00,000/. The appeal before the Tribunal was by the revenue and as the assessee had accepted the demand and had got a small portion of the demand even adjusted to make the disputed amount less than Rs.10,00,000/-, the appeal was not maintainable. In the circumstances, the Revenue could not have maintained the appeal before the Tribunal having regard to the extant Circular/Instructions d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid illustration (Page 181 consult), it was noted that it is a case where the quantum of duty was not disputed as such by the assessee but it was the Revenue who filed the appeal before the Tribunal and a portion of the said duty was also paid by way of adjustment by the assessee. Therefore, the outstanding duty was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the Board. Hence, no appeal could have been filed by the revenue before the Tribunal. Once the Commissioner of appeals held in favour of the assessee herein there was no dispute insofar as the assessee was concerned on the disputed duty before the Tribunal. The monetary limit applies on the disputed duty and not on the total duty demanded in a case. The disputed duty was only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
