TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....truction/Circular in F.No.390/Misc./30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023, issued in relation to the National Litigation Policy. 2. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as per the National Litigation Policy." 2. The same view has also been taken by the CESTAT Chennai in the case of M/s Fabulous Traders vide Final Order No.41428 of 2024 dated 08.11.2024. C.B.I.C. Circular F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.08.2011. C.B.I.C. Circular F. No.390/Misc./30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023 is reproduced below for ready reference:- F. NO. 390/Misc/30/2023-JC Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (Judicial Cell) 'B' Wing, 4th Floor. HUDCO VISHALA, Building Bhikaji Cama Place, R. K. Puram. New Delhi-66 Date 02.11.2023 INSTRUCTION To, 1. All Pr. Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners / Pr. Commissioners/ Commissioners of Customs/ Customs (Prev.)/ GST & CX 2. All Pr. Director Generals/ Directors Generals under CBIC; 3. Chief Commissioner (AR): Commissioners (Legal) CBIC/ Directorate of Legal Affairs 4. webmaster.ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 21.03.2024 dated in case of CMR Nikkei India Pvt. Ltd., (Customs Appeal No.52004 to 52032 of 2019 along with Custom Appeal No.50906 & 51124 of 2020) observed as follow :- "4. It is further submitted that the Department otherwise deserves an opportunity of hearing which stands denied to the Department due to order challenged by the Department in above mentioned 30 re-assessed value of the impugned goods was accepted by the Assessee-Respondent in view of Section 17 (4) of Customs Act, 1962. The importer despite depositing the differential duty based on said re-assessed value had still filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The said appeal has been allowed vide the order under challenge bearing No.59-115/2019 dated 05.04.2019. The said order has error apparent on face of its record, being in violation of mandate of Section 128 A 2(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is impressed upon that due to this error the department were devoid of any opportunity of being heard. The appeal is accordingly prayed to be hearing on merits. 5. Having heard the contentions of both the parties on the preliminary issue of pecuniary jurisdiction, we observe and hold as follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e other High Court in regard to the relief sought." Also, we are of the opinion that the Parliament/Legislature never speaks or explains what does a provision, enacted by it, mean. Law is what is written in the statute and also the one as declared by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Further, it is for the Supreme Court and the High Courts to declare what a particular provision of statute say, and not for the executive. Thus, we opine that the circulars/ instructions issued by the Board (CBIC/CBDT etc.) may be binding on the officers of the department, being issued by the higher authority, however just being issued by Board, a document, be it a circular or instruction does not get legislative affirmation. The Delhi High Court in Addl. CIT v. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh (1982) 136 ITR 645 (Del) had observed that the circulars of the Central Board are not binding on the court. Also that the Board cannot impose a burden on the taxpayer greater than what the statute provides except can relax the rigour of the law. Hon'ble Supreme Court also in Bengal Iron Corporation v. CTO (1993) UPTC 1312 (SC) has observed that so far as clarifications/ circulars issued by the Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erve that the Bills of Entries were self assessed by the importer. However, on verification of value therein, the proper officer opined it to be undervalued. He accordingly proposed the enhanced value. The importer respondent gave consent in writing for the value so proposed, paid the differential duty as per the value so enhanced and took the out of charge order. Subsequently, treating the said enhancement as the assessment order by proper officer, the importer respondent filed 32 appeals (one for each Bill of Entry) before Commissioner (Appeals). 9. We observe that as per Section 17 of Customs Act, 1962, the proper officer was duty bound to give the correct assessment of duty in any case, the self assessment is found not done correctly. The proper officer in terms of Section 17 (4) has to re-assess the duty leviable on such goods. The self assessed value for imported goods was opined to be incorrect. In view of Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, the proper officer reassessed the same. Since the reassessed value was contrary to the self assessment done by the importer, the proper officer under Section 17 (5) of the Act is required to mandatorily pass a speaking order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, but an appeal still is being filed, the Commissioner (Appeals) has to refer the matter back to the proper officer. 12. We are of the opinion that the intention of Legislature under the said provision is that the opportunity of hearing should be equally available to the department as well. Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the value which was self assessed by the importer by setting aside the value as was enhanced by the proper officer under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. The value was enhanced without any speaking order as the proposed enhancement was fully accepted by the importer vide his consent given in writing to the proper officer. Due to this, speaking order was not required as per sub-clause 5 of Section 17 of the Act, as quoted above. In such situation, Commissioner (Appeals) had to refer the matter back to the proper officer/adjudicating authority for fresh decision/order, in terms of above quoted sub-clause (ii) of Section 128A (3) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 13. The absence of remanding the said matter, to our opinion, amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. As brought to notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... namely, Sanjivani Non Ferrous Trading Private Limited for the same commodity i.e. aluminium scrap imported during more or less same period/time. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed one Order -in -Appeal for all the 57 Bills of Entry though numbered as 59-115/2019. Against the said OIA, this appeal is filed before this Tribunal (CESTAT). Rule 6A of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 provides for one appeal against such order. It reads as follows:- 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 declarations dealt with in the decision or order appealed against, it shall suffice for purposes of these rules that the appellant files one Memorandum of Appeal against the order or decision of the authority below, along with such number of copies thereof as provided in rule 9. Explanation. In a case where the - (1) impugned order-in-appeal has been passed with reference to more than one orders-in-original, the Memoranda of Appeal filed as per Rule 6 shall be as many as the number of the orders-in-original to which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is the further bounden duty to deal with it in details. If the judgment is distinguishable on facts a definite conclusion on that count has to be reached. If the judgment is not correct then equally reasons have to be assigned for such a crucial conclusion. This is the rule which has been emphasized. Rule of judicial discipline requires reference being made to a Larger Bench in case of differences of opinions or views between the benches of the Tribunal on identical facts. A healthy way of deciding matters and to maintain purity and sanctity of the judicial process is emphasized by this Court in Mercedes Benz (supra) and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This binds the Tribunal. We have also cautioned the Tribunal in number of cases that the process of adjudication and in Revenue matters requires an early finality to vexed issues. If the issues are raised repeatedly then all more there ought to be certainty and end to the litigation. In Revenue matters none is benefited by delays. If the delays are caused by repeated remand of proceedings then that has to be avoided. If its earlier orders have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal, then, the leas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en Section 3 and 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 11. In the above situation, we are of the view that another Coordinate Bench should not venture into the issues raised and even attempt to express any opinion on the merits of either of the views expressed in Union of India & Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Acer Ltd. (supra). Rather, according to us, the questions referred should receive consideration of a Larger Bench for which purpose the connected papers may now be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions." 7. In case of Mahindra & Mahindra [2015 (315) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- 4. Since two Benches of the same strength of Members have taken two conflicting views, we are of the opinion, that judicial discipline requires that instead of disagreeing with the view taken by the First Bench, the appropriate course for the second Bench would have been to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. This is the basic requirement of judicial discipline. Since this has not been done, we set aside both orders and remand both the appeals ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause the Member (Judicial), without going into the merits of the case, has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue under litigation policy by relying upon the CBIC's Circular F.No. 390/Misc/30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023. 3.1 The learned Authorized Representative further submits that Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi, vide Interim Order No. 31-62/2024 dated 21.03.2024 in the case of Commissioner vs. CMR Nikkei India Pvt Ltd & ors [in Appeal Nos. C/52004-52032/2019, C/50906/2020, C/51124/2020 & C/50875/2020], has taken a contrary view; whereas Kolkata Bench in the case of Commissioner vs. M/s Enterprise International Ltd vide Final Order No. 77247-77248/2024 dated 07.11.2024 [in Appeal Nos. C/78947-78948/2018] and Chennai Bench in the case of Commissioner vs. M/s Fabulous Traders vide Final Order No. 41428/2024 dated 08.11.2024 [in Appeal No. C/40368/2020] have dismissed the department's appeals under litigation policy. He further submits that in view of the contrary views of different benches of the Tribunal, Kolkata and Chennai on one hand and New Delhi Bench on other hand, the matter may be referred to Larger Bench to resolve the issue. 4. On the other hand, the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Final Order No. 60497-60500/2025 dated 24.04.2025 - CESTAT Chandigarh • Commissioner of Customs vs. Goel Overseas - Final Order No. 60778-60790/2025 dated 09.07.2025 - CESTAT Chandigarh • Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s Century NF Casting - Final Order No. 60844/2025 dated 10.07.2025 - CESTAT Chandigarh 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record as well as gone through the respective opinions recorded by both the learned Members. 6. I find that the learned Member (Judicial), without going into the merits of the case, has dismissed the appeal as the amount involved in the present appeal is below the monetary limit prescribed for litigation before the CESTAT vide CBIC's Circular F.No. 390/Misc/30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023. Further, I find that the learned Member (Judicial) has relied upon decisions of Kolkata Bench in the case of Commissioner vs. M/s Enterprise International Ltd (supra) and Chennai Bench in the case of Commissioner vs. M/s Fabulous Traders (supra) on the same issue; finally, the learned Member (Judicial) has come to the conclusion that the present appeal needs to be dismissed under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r: "6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the present cases are squarely covered under the CBIC's instructions dated 02.11.2023. We also find that none of these cases is falling under the exceptions provided in para 2 of the instructions dated 02.11.2023; though the ld. AR has tried to make out a case that these cases are covered under the exceptions provided in para 2 of the said instructions because the department has challenged the constitutionality and the validity of the Act or Rules, but we do not accept this submission of the ld. AR that the present cases fall under the exceptions. While dismissing the earlier bunch of Revenue's appeals on the identical issue, this Bench has considered various decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, wherein department's appeals were dismissed under litigation policy keeping the question of law, if any, open. It will be pertinent to reproduce the findings of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. VSM Impex Pvt Ltd [Final Order No. 60260-60285/2024 dated 22.05.2024 CESTAT Chandigarh] which are reproduced herein below: "6. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsport - 2017 (355) ELT 238 (Bom.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed in para 9 as under : 9. The Division Bench of this Court at Panaji (Goa) of which one of us (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) was a party, while dealing with Sec. 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sec. 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the aspect of reduction of litigation referring to monetary limits from time to time for filing appeals by the department in a case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Sesa Goa Ltd., 2017 (3) Bom.C.R. 470 has reiterated as under: 4. Apart from the above position of law the Ministry of Finance issued certain resolutions of excise and customs from time to time and has issued instructions/circulars with clear intention to support the Government cases for reduction of litigation referring to the monitory limits from time to time, for filing appeals by the department before CESTAT/High Court and Supreme Court referring to power conferred by Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 and related provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. * * * * * 6. There is no issue that the appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms, Rajasthan Versus Sagar Suitings Pvt. Ltd - (2023) 3 Centax 147 (S.C.), where civil appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as the tax amount involved was less than the prescribed limit as specified in the notification for the Revenue to appeal and left the question of law open. We feel that the Instructions have been issued with the object to reduce the litigation involving meagre amount of revenue and where no substantial question of law of the nature specified arises for consideration." Further, in the case of CC Vs. Kulcip Medicines P Ltd - 2009 (14) STR 608 (P&H), the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has observed in para 12 as under: 12. We are further of the view that the circulars issued by the Board are binding and meant for adoption for the purposes of bringing uniformity. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) and Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.) = (1999) 7 SCC 84. If the aforesaid principle is applied to the facts of the present case there does n....