Introducing the βIn Favour Ofβ filter in Case Laws.
- βοΈ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- π Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws β


Just a moment...
Introducing the βIn Favour Ofβ filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws β


Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Monetary threshold for Customs appeals: CBIC instruction bars Revenue from filing CESTAT appeals where disputed duty is below Rs50 lakh, so appeals dismissed.</h1> CBIC instructions promulgated under its statutory powers prescribe a monetary threshold of Rs.50,00,000 as a precondition for filing departmental appeals ... Threshold monetary limit for filing appeal before the Tribunal - litigation policy of the Government - applicability of CBIC instructions issued under the powers conferred by Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 - dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with prescribed monetary threshold - Maintainability of Revenue's appeals in view of the CBIC instruction prescribing a monetary threshold and the Government's litigation policy - HELD THAT:- By deriving the powers conferred in Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued the instructions, from time to time, with the objective in reduction of the Government litigation in the area of Customs. In the latest instruction issued by the CBIC from file F. No. 390/Misc/30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023, the threshold monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs has been prescribed, below which the appeal shall not be filed before the CESTAT. Though at paragraph 2 in the said instructions dated 02.11.2023, there is specific mention of agitating the matter before the Appellate Forum, irrespective of the involvement of the amount on certain issues, but the issue categorized therein are not confirming to the present appeals filed by the Revenue. Hence, the appeals can be disposed of in terms of the litigation policy formulated by the Government. Since the Customs duty demand of Rs.20,85,698/- was dropped by the learned adjudicating authority, which is below the threshold limit of Rs.50,00,000/- prescribed under the said Instruction dated 02.11.2023, Revenue is not permitted to file appeal before the Tribunal. Both sides have confirmed that the disputed amount of customs duty involved in the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit prescribed under the Instruction dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC. Considering the disputed amount of customs duty involved in the present appeals filed by Revenue, which is below the prescribed threshold limit, as per the Instruction dated 02.11.2023, the appeals filed by Revenue in our considered view, are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed under the Litigation Policy of the Government. Issues: Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable before the Tribunal in view of the CBIC Instruction dated 02.11.2023 prescribing a monetary threshold of Rs.50,00,000/- below which appeals shall not be filed.Analysis: The appeals challenge the portion of customs duty demand of Rs.20,85,698/- which was dropped by the adjudicating authority; the disputed amount falls below the Rs.50,00,000/- threshold prescribed in Instruction F. No. 390/Misc/30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023 issued under the powers conferred by Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Instruction aims to limit Government litigation by restricting filing of appeals below the specified monetary limit, subject to specified categories (which are not applicable in these appeals). The Tribunal notes that both sides have confirmed that the disputed amount is below the prescribed limit and that the matters do not fall within any exception identified in the Instruction.Conclusion: The appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable under the CBIC Instruction dated 02.11.2023 and are dismissed; decision is in favour of the assessee.