TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of law came to be formulated by us for consideration: "Whether the department/revenue could have prosecuted the appeal before the CESTAT though as per the extant Circular bearing No.F.No390/Misc/116/2017-JC dated 17.08.2011 monetary limit was fixed at Rs. 10 lakhs and as such appeal filed by the revenue against order dated 08.08.2018, which involved tax component of Rs. 1,81,754/- could not have been prosecuted or not? 3. In other words, appeal has been admitted for consideration of the above substantial question of law. However, we find that there is typographical error in mentioning Circular number. As such, we have re-framed the substantial question of law. "Whether the department/revenue could have prosecuted the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so informed the department/jurisdictional range officer that the assessable value and duty payment made is subject to change on finalisation of copper price by M/s.BSNL and in such cases of increase or decrease in final copper price, they would pay differential duty or claim to refund of duty excess paid, as the case may be. 6. BSNL on finalizing the copper price had issued a Circular No.203-22/2005/MMS(Pt-I) dated 21st August 2006 communicating the final copper wire rod price w.e.f. April 2005 for regularizing the payments in respect of purchases made under contract from appellant-assessee. At the time of clearance and dispatch of subject goods to assessee, it had raised invoices based on provisional copper price and had realized the bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on which date, Tribunal noticed that appeal so ordered to be filed had not been filed. However, supplementary appeals came to be filed on 3rd September 2010. Without condoning the delay, supplementary appeals so filed came to be dismissed vide order dated 6th January 2011 (Annexure-Q). Against order dated 6.1.2011, undisputedly, no appeals have been filed by the Revenue. In effect, department of Revenue has accepted the order of refund passed in favour of the appellant herein. 8. Be that as it may. Insofar as Appeal No.E/839/2008, which came to be filed by the Department, came to be allowed by the Tribunal, altogether on a different ground, which was never canvassed or urged in the appeal memorandum filed by the Department before CEST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal itself was not maintainable and Tribunal ought to have dismissed it on that ground and CESTAT could not have adjudicated the appeal on merits. 10. Per contra, Sri Akash Shetty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N R Bhaskar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent would support the impugned order. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find by Circular dated 17th August 2011 referred herein above supra, monetary limit fixed for the Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate the appeal had been restricted to Rs. 5 lac and above. The said monetary limit came to be enhanced upto Rs. 10 lac by Circular dated 17th December 2015. The Central Board of Excise & Customs by its extent Instructi....