TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for preferring appeal has been laid down. For the High Court, the minimum threshold monetary value for filing appeal is Rs. 1 crore while the seized goods are valued as Rs. 49,74,605/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Six Hundred and Five) only. [2] The present appeal has been preferred against the Final Order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench Kolkata, Regional Bench Court No. 1 in Customs Appeal No. 75171 of 2016 against the order dated 30.11.2015 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Guwahati. The appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by setting aside the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty. It was also held that the authority could not prove the factum of smuggled gold. [3] The brief facts of the case are that on 20.06.2014, the respondent herein was intercepted by the Officers of Imphal Customs at Luwangshangbam near NRL Petrol Pump along National Highway No. 39 at around 2:00 pm and found 12 pieces of gold biscuits, total weighing 2002.26 grams approximately and worth of Rs. 49,74,605/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Six Hundre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was further held that there was no material to substantiate the charge of smuggled gold bars against the respondent herein. [9] By the present appeal, the appellant prayed that the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 passed in Customs Appeal No. 75171 of 2016 be set aside and dismissed. [10] It may be noted that the Ministry of Finance, Government of India issued INSTRUCTION dated 11.08.2011 prescribing financial limits for preferring appeals before Supreme Court, High Court and CEGAT as Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs), Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) and Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) respectively and the same reads as follows: "INSTRUCTION Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs New Delhi 17th August 2011 Sub:- Reduction of Government litigation - providing monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT/High Courts and Supreme Court - Regarding. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 the Central Board of Excise & C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in a case. Whether monetary limits could apply to cases of refund. It is clarified that the monetary limits being prescribed by the Board would apply to cases of refund as well. Whether applications being filed by the Department before office of Joint Secretary (Revision Application) would also be covered under the stipulation of monetary limits. The limit specified herein will not be applicable to application filed before the Joint Secretary (Revision Application). Whether exclusion of audit objections mentioned in para 6(c) of Instruction dated 20.10.2020 would cover internal audit objection cases also or whether they would be limited to cases of revenue audit alone. The intention was to apply the exclusion clause mentioned at para 6(c) only to disputes arising out of revenue audit objections accepted by the Department. It has now been decided to delete the said exclusion clause (refer para 3 of this Instruction). Therefore, in all cases of audit objections accepted by the Department, while protective demands may continue to be issued but the same could be subjected to monetary limits for filing appeal in the Tribunal, High Courts and the Supreme Court. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er or Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires; (c) Classification and refund issues which are of legal and/ or recurring nature. 3. Withdrawal process in respect of pending cases in above forums, as per the above revised limits, will follow the current practice that is being followed for the withdrawal of cases from the Supreme Court, High Courts and CESTAT. (Bhagwat Prasad) Deputy Secretary, Review Email: [email protected]" -------------- [12] Mr. Nihar Das Gupta, learned counsel of the respondent has submitted the following points that the appeal is not maintainable in the present form: 1) Maintainability : The present appeal is not maintainable in view of CBIC Instruction No. 390/Misc./30/2023/JC dated 02.11.2023, which prescribes a monetary threshold of Rs. 1 crore for filling appeals before the Hon'ble High Court. The seizure value in the present case is Rs.49.74 lakhs, which falls well below the prescribed limit. 2) Binding nature of the circular. It is settled law that circulars issued by the Board in exercise of statutory powers are binding on the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE v. Ratan Mel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing a substantial question of law are liable to be dismissed at the threshold. [13] Case Laws referred by the respondent : (a) In the High Court of Calcutta in the case of CEXA/10/2020, Commissioner of CGST AND CEX, Bolpur Commissionerate vs M/S. Steel Authority of India Limited which held that "2. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is much below the limit fixed under circular No.F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 3. In view of the aforesaid circular, the appeal (CEXA/10/2020) is dismissed." (b) In the High court of Calcutta in the case of CUSTA/12/2022, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata vs Shri Gulshan Ahmed Barbhuiya which held that "2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is below the limit fixed by circular No.F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023 for filling appeals by the department and as such, the appeal may be dismissed in view of the afor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 20.10.2010, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes had fixed a monetary limit below which appeals were not to be filed by the Department before the Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. The monetary limit has undergone increased from time to time. The latest instruction dated 02.11.2023 prescribed a monetary limit of Rs. 1 Crore for appeal to the High Court. The instruction further state that process has to be initiated for withdrawal of pending cases which are below the monetary limit. 6. In the subject case, the issue involved is with regard to redemption, fine of Rs. 40 Lakhs and penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs which cumulatively is below the threshold limit. Consequently, we are of the view that the appeal being below the monetary limit as prescribed by the instruction is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed on the ground of low tax effect." (f) In CEXA/9/2021, Commissioner of Service tax, Kolkata v. Sourav Ganguly of the High Court of Calcutta, it was held that "That apart, the learned writ Court while allowing the writ petition by order dated 30th June, 2016 had quantified the quantum of interest at the rate of 10%. The fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946 CUS.APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2018, it was held that: "7. The main part of Section 125 of the Customs Act reads thus: "125. Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.-(1) Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or exportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not known, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, and option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Gold is not a prohibited good under the Act. Section enables payment of redemption fine as an option in lieu of confiscation, to redeem the goods confiscated. The redemption fine cannot be more than the market price of the goods. The circulars referred to above mention the reason for fixing such a monetary limit as "Reduction of Government Litigation." 8. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Harish Chander (Civil Appeal No.8690 of 2011), took i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. Clearly despite time granted, no disclosure has been made by the revenue to establish that the revenue implication in each or any of the appeals exceeds the monetary limit of 1 crore. 11. Since the order passed by the Tribunal is clearly in favour of the assesse and there is no cross appeal filed by revenue, no justification or occasion survives for this Court to allow the revenue the luxury of maintaining the present litigation against its own stated litigation policy. 12. For the above reason, the present appeal and the connected appeals are dismissed being below monetary limit. No order as to costs." (j) In Commissioner of customs, export, New Delhi ICD, TKD Vs Balaji Overseas, Civil Appeal Nos. 9032-9034 of 2019, 2024(389)E.L.T. 289(S.C.) "1. It is stated at the bar that in terms of the latest circular dated 2-22-2023, the monetary limit has been enhanced to Rs. 2 crores. The appeal would have to be disposed of having regard to the said threshold limit as the amount in dispute in the instant cases is only Rs, 1,28,73,481/- (Rs. One crore, twenty eight lakhs seventy three thousand, four hundred and eighty one only) 2. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Meghalaya rejected the point raised against the maintainability of the Appeal and held as follows :- "First of all, the intent and purpose of the Circular is very plain. Where realisation of duty and other levies are involved, the Government would only challenge any adverse order, if on success in the proceedings, it would be able to realize an amount equal to or above the threshold limit indicated in the notification. Any realization below the threshold limit did not seem to have been considered significant by the Government. This notification clearly would not cover cases of smuggling where orders for confiscation and imposition of fine, penalty etc. are provided, without any right given to the delinquent to redeem the goods upon payment of duty, penalty etc. This is a case where no such right has been given. Therefore, if the revenue succeeds before us the order-in- original is likely to be restored resulting in absolute confiscation of the goods along with other penalties. If the respondents succeed, it would result in affirmation of the order of the Tribunal. So if one possible result is absolute confiscation of the goods without any right of redemption on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.2 Crore are the new monetary limits threshold for filing appeal. These instructions are issued from time to time to weed out appeal as a measure to reduce government litigation at all levels. Para 2 of the Instruction dated 02.11.2023 prescribes three types of 'Adverse judgments' which can be contested irrespective of the monetary limits so fixed: (a) Where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge; (b) Where the Notification/Instruction/Order or Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires; and (c) Classification and refund issues which are of legal and/or recurring nature. Para 3 enables withdrawal of the pending cases in the fora as mentioned above as per the revised limits, thereby implying that the new limits shall also be applicable in the pending cases. In other words, Para 3 is in tune with the government litigation policy of eliminating low amount cases. Para 2 adds one more condition apart from the two mentioned in the earlier Instruction dated 17.08.2011. New Instruction of 2023 sets higher monetary limits of Rs.50 lakh, Rs.1 Crore and Rs.2 Crore for filing appeals in the Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Courts respectively an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e applicable as per the decision of Meghalaya High Court. It may be noted that SLP(C) No. 4566 of 2025 is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the decision of Meghalaya High Court. [24] From a bare perusal of the Instruction dated 02.11.2023, it is seen that only on satisfaction of any of the three conditions, i.e., where the matter involves challenge to the constitutional validity of an Act/Rule; where the Notification/Instruction/Order/ Circular has been held illegal; or where classification and refund issues are legal/ recurring in nature, appeal will be maintainable irrespective of the monetary limits. With respect, we are not able to agree with the decision of the Meghalaya High Court that appeal will be maintainable notwithstanding the monetary limits, if the goods under investigation is smuggled one. The 'smuggled goods' is not included in any of the three conditions laid down in Para 2 of the Instruction dated 02.11.2023 and the same is incorporated by judicial interpretation. Such a construction of statute cannot be adopted when the wordings in the relevant rules are clear. Resort to the golden rule of interpretation of statute can be resorted when the words....