TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er/assessee/respondent namely M/s Vardhman Sales Agency in respect of the assessment of 93 Bills of Entry, but the Revenue has filed only one appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the importer/assessee/respondent M/s Vardhman Sales Agency had imported impugned goods vide 93 Bills of Entry at ICD Piyala, Faridabad, Haryana by declaring the goods as metal scrap and self assessed duty of Rs.7,70,81,624/- on the declared transaction value of Rs.35,56,19,815/-. The said Bills of Entry were re-assessed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD Piyala, Faridabad at higher value than the declared value. The total re-assessed duty comes to Rs.9,38,76,801/- on re-determined value of Rs.43,38,57,108/- by the department. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 mandates that "in a case where the impugned Order-in-Appeal has been passed with reference to more than one Order-in-Original, the Memoranda of Appeal filed as per Rule 6 shall be as many as the number of Orders-in-Original to which the case relates in so far as the appellant is concerned". He also submits that the Revenue filed only one appeal instead of filing 93 appeals before this Tribunal in order to circumvent the mandate of the Ministry of Finance (Litigation Policy) regarding monetary limit in filing of department's appeals, which stipulate the minimum monetary threshold below which appeals cannot be filed by the department before the CESTAT, the High Court and the Supreme Court. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed (supra). 6. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, in the present case, we are only deciding the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent regarding the maintainability of the present appeal against 93 Bills of Entry, by which the importer/respondent had imported the impugned consignments. Here, it is pertinent to consider the relevant Rule 6(A) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, which is reproduced herein below: "RULE 6A. The number of appeals to be filed - Notwithstanding the number of show cause notices, price lists , classification lists, bills of entry, shipping bills, refund claims/demands, letters or declaration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n assessment order in itself. 8. Further, we find that the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of CMR Nikkie India Pvt Ltd (supra) has also interpreted Rule 6(A) and has held that the number of appeals which the department is required to file, will be equivalent to the number of Bills of Entry filed by the importer/assessee. 9. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of CGST & CE, Jammu vs. M/s Narbada Industries (supra) while interpreting the National Litigation Policy and specifically the phrase "monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed", in its aforementioned pronouncement lucidly elucidated that the said phrase pertains to the monetary threshold of a singular appeal, rather than the aggregate ....