Revenue appeals dismissed for falling below Rs. 50 lakhs threshold under Section 131BA

Commissioner of Customs ICD Patparganj & Other ICDs Versus VSM Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs ICD Patparganj & Other ICDs Versus VSM Impex Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable in view of the CBIC's instructions on monetary limits for filing appeals.
2. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in setting aside the assessment order on enhanced value.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Appeals in View of CBIC's Instructions:

The learned Counsel for the respondent raised a primary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals, citing the CBIC's instructions that prohibit filing appeals below a stipulated monetary threshold. The Ministry of Finance introduced a National Litigation Management Policy to reduce litigation, specifying monetary limits below which appeals should not be filed. The instructions dated 02.11.2023 revised these limits to Rs. 2 Crores for the Supreme Court, Rs. 1 Crore for High Courts, and Rs. 50 Lakhs for CESTAT. Exceptions to these limits include challenges to the constitutional validity of an Act or Rule, or where a notification/instruction/order/circular has been held illegal or ultra vires.

The learned Counsel emphasized that the instructions are binding on the department as per Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962, which empowers the Board to issue instructions fixing monetary limits for filing appeals. Various decisions from the CESTAT, High Courts, and Supreme Court have consistently held that such instructions are binding on the department. The Counsel cited several cases, including Commr of CGST vs. Dorf Ketal Pvt Ltd and CCE vs. Suvarna Sanjivani Sugarcane Transport, where appeals were dismissed due to low tax effect in adherence to the CBIC's instructions.

On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Appellant-Revenue justified the filing of the appeals, stating that the department had not instructed him to withdraw the appeals, despite agreeing that the duty involved in each appeal was less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. He also argued that these appeals fell under the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 02.11.2023, relying on an interim order in the case of Century Metal Recycling Private Limited.

The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both parties and reviewing material on record, found that the present appeals fell within the instructions prescribed in the circular dated 02.11.2023. The Tribunal noted that the CBIC's circulars aimed to reduce litigation by setting monetary limits below which appeals should not be filed. The Tribunal cited several cases, including CCE vs. Suvarna Sanjivani Sugarcane Transport and CC Vs. FJM Cylinders Pvt Ltd, where appeals were dismissed due to low tax effect, reinforcing the binding nature of the CBIC's instructions.

2. Setting Aside the Assessment Order on Enhanced Value:

The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment order on enhanced value, directing the reassessment of the bill of entry at the declared value with consequential relief. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that an assessee could challenge the enhancement by way of appeal, even if they had accepted the enhancement at the time of clearance. The Commissioner (Appeals) also found that the assessing officer had not followed Section 14 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, before rejecting the declared value and enhancing it.

The Revenue challenged this order, arguing that the importer had accepted the value enhancement in writing at the time of clearance. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, noting that the assessee's acceptance of the enhancement did not preclude them from challenging it later. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer had not adhered to the prescribed rules and various decisions on the issue before enhancing the declared value.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed all 26 appeals filed by the Revenue, finding them not maintainable in view of the CBIC's instructions dated 02.11.2023, which set a monetary limit of Rs. 50 Lakhs for filing appeals before the CESTAT. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to set aside the assessment order on enhanced value, directing reassessment at the declared value with consequential relief. The Tribunal left the question of law, if any, open.