Monetary limit for preferring appeal by Department before High Court.
Facts- The appellant, Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Nashik Commissionerate has filed this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w CENVAT Credit Rules.
Appellant/Applicant has taken out this application for disposal of central excise appeal, in view of following averments so made in application. That with the objective of reduction of litigation, the Central Board of Excise & Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, has issued Instructions from time to time, setting the Monetary limits below which the Appeals cannot be preferred by the Department. Recently C.B.E.&C revised its earlier Instructions dated 17-12-2015 vide F. No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC/Pt, dated 30-12-2016 raising the monetary limit from Rs. 15,00,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- with a view to reduce the litigations. As per the Instructions dated 30-12-2016, the monetary limit for preferring Appeal before Hon'ble High Court is above Rs. 20,00,000/-.
Held- The Hon’ble High Court held that 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 :
However, it is made clear that in view of the specific provision of Section 131BA(2) as reproduced and emphasized above it is necessary to observe that once the appeals are disposed of in view of the above circumstances, based upon such circulars/instructions “it shall not preclude such Commissioner of Customs from filing any appeal, application, revision or reference in any other case involving the same or similar issues or questions of law.” Therefore, taking over all view of the matter and with above observations, we are disposing of this appeal and application.
To read the complete judgment 2017 Taxo.online 78
