TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CBIC appeals below Rs. 50 lakhs dismissed as non-maintainable under 2023 circular guidelines</h1> CESTAT Chandigarh dismissed a departmental appeal as non-maintainable due to monetary threshold limits. The CBIC circular dated 02.11.2023 prescribed that ... Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit involved in the appeal - Challenge to assessment - enhancement of value as per acceptance/admission by the importer/assessee /respondent - HELD THAT:- For reduction of litigation, the CBIC has issued circulars/instructions from time to time instructing the department not to file the appeal and in some cases, if it has already filed, not to press the appeal before higher authorities i.e. the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court as the case may be, where the duty amount involved is below the minimum threshold limits respectively prescribed in such circulars. In the present cases, we are concerned with the CBIC’s latest circular dated 02.11.2023, wherein it has been specifically prescribed that no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs and if already filed, will have to be withdrawn - the present appeal falls within the instructions as prescribed in the circular dated 02.11.2023. It is pertinent to mention here that the amount of duty involved in the appeal is below of the threshold limit prescribed in circular dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC wherein it is provided that if the duty amount involved is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, then no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT, and if already filed, the same will be withdrawn by the department. Reference made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE, & SERVICE TAX, NASHIK II COMMISSIONERATE, VERSUS M/S. SUVARNA SANJIVANI SUGARCANE [2017 (6) TMI 858 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed '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 these appeals on the same ground. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for such disposal.' The present appeal filed by the department is not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Board - Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Assessment of enhanced value of imported goods.2. Validity of the importer's protest against the enhanced value.3. Applicability of CBIC's monetary limit instructions for filing appeals.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Assessment of Enhanced Value of Imported Goods:The case involves the importer filing three Bills of Entry for importing 'Fabrics' at ICD Ballabhgarh on a self-assessment basis. The Assessing Officer found the declared value inadequate compared to contemporaneous import data of similar goods, leading to the rejection of the declared value under Rule 12 of CVR, 2007, and enhancement of the assessable value. The differential duty amounted to Rs. 18,44,219/-. The importer accepted the enhanced value voluntarily but later appealed against the assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter, directing a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Deputy Commissioner then passed a speaking order reaffirming the enhanced value based on contemporaneous data under Rule 5 of CVR, 2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this re-assessment, citing the lack of specific Bills of Entry references and the importer's substantiation of the declared value through Outward Remittance Transaction Advice.2. Validity of the Importer's Protest Against the Enhanced Value:The Revenue contended that the importer's acceptance of the enhanced value and payment of duty without protest negated the need for a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the importer's acceptance lost relevance once a protest was lodged, and the rejection of declared value must strictly adhere to CVR, 2007, and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Assessing Authority failed to disclose contemporaneous data details and that there was no allegation of incorrect documents or related parties.3. Applicability of CBIC's Monetary Limit Instructions for Filing Appeals:The respondent's counsel argued that the appeal is not maintainable due to the monetary threshold limit of Rs. 50 lakhs set by the Ministry of Finance, CBIC's instructions dated 02.11.2023, for filing appeals. These instructions aim to reduce litigation and streamline the process, binding on the department under Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962. The counsel cited several judicial decisions affirming the binding nature of such instructions on the department. The Revenue's representative justified the appeal, claiming it fell under exceptions to the monetary limit, but the tribunal found the appeal non-maintainable as the duty involved was below the prescribed limit.Conclusion:The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order setting aside the enhanced value assessment. The tribunal emphasized the binding nature of CBIC's monetary limit instructions, reinforcing the objective of reducing litigation involving meager revenue amounts. The decision left the question of law open, consistent with precedents emphasizing adherence to CBIC's instructions for uniformity and reduction of unnecessary litigation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
