2024 (11) TMI 411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als) has disposed of the appeals filed by the importer/assessee/respondent namely M/s Rama Krishna International in respect of the assessment of 7 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 Rama Krishna International had imported impugned goods vide 7 Bills of Entry at ICD Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana by declaring the goods as mix lot of polyester knitted fabrics and self assessed duty of Rs.29,17,138/- on the declared transaction value of Rs.1,24,23,925/-. The said Bills of Entry were re-assessed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD Ballabhgarh, Faridabad at higher value than the declared value. The total re-assessed duty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... separate appeals for each Bill of Entry. 4.2 He further submits that Explanation 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 7 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 f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal in the case of CCE & CGST, Jaipur-I vs. Century Metal Recycling Private Limited (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 7 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 list....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evenue is required to file 7 appeals challenging each Bill of Entry which is an 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 perta....