2015 (9) TMI 513 - HC - Customs

Court dismisses appeal due to monetary limit breach, upholding Board Circular. Appeal rejected, no costs awarded.

The Commissioner of Customs (Sea Imports), Chennai Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and others

The High Court held that the appeal by the Department was not maintainable as the redemption fine and penalty amounts were below the Rs. 2 Lakhs monetary ... Monetary limit – Redemption fines and penalty being less than monetary limit – Confiscation of goods and consequent imposition of redemption fine and penalty was imposed by adjudicating authority – Tribunal found that confiscation ordered under Section 111-D of Customs Act is not maintainable and as result, allowed appeal filed by assesse – Held that:- seen from records that assessing officer initially imposed ₹ 3,00,000/- as redemption fine and ₹ 70,000/- as penalty, which, on appeal, was subsequently reduced by Commissioner and on further appeal by assessee, Tribunal set aside order of Commissioner – Therefore, very clear from records that monetary limit having been fixed at ₹ 2 Lakhs, even as per order of Commissioner (Appeals), redemption fine and penalty being less than ₹ 2 Lakhs, appeal is not maintainable – Therefore, Court not inclined to entertain appeal – Appeal dismissed – Decided against revenue. Issues:Confiscation of goods, redemption fine, penalty imposition, maintainability of appeal based on monetary limit.Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:The case involved the confiscation of goods and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty in a scenario of importing second-hand machinery under different consignments with separate bills of entry. The adjudicating authority initially confiscated the goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000 and a penalty of Rs. 70,000. Upon appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1,30,000 and the penalty to Rs. 40,000. Subsequently, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal, which found that the confiscation under Section 111-D of the Customs Act was not sustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeal by the assessee. The Department then filed the present appeal against this decision.Maintainability of Appeal Based on Monetary Limit:A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the Department's appeal. The objection contended that the appeal should not have been filed by the Department as per a Board Circular dated 13.1.1993, which set a monetary limit of Rs. 2 Lakhs for filing appeals. Since the monetary limit in this case, even after the Commissioner (Appeals) order, was below Rs. 2 Lakhs, the appeal by the Department was deemed not maintainable. Despite the appeal being admitted based on substantial questions of law, the Court dismissed the appeal due to the monetary limit issue highlighted by the 2nd respondent's counsel.Judgment Outcome:The High Court, after considering the arguments and the monetary limit set by the Board Circular, concluded that the appeal was not maintainable as the redemption fine and penalty amounts were below Rs. 2 Lakhs, as per the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Court upheld the applicability of the Board Circular to the case and dismissed the appeal without delving into the substantive questions of law. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and no costs were awarded in this matter.