Comnr,Central Excise vs. Vinshree Coal Carrie

Held

The Court noted the Circular dated July 11, 2018, issued by the CBIC, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. For High Courts, the revised monetary limit for filing appeals was fixed at Rs. 50,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in the present appeal was brought to the Court's notice as being less than Rs. 50 lac, the appeal was disposed of in light of this circular. The Court granted the Department liberty to revive the appeal within thirty days from the date of the order in case of any difficulty. The Court did not decide the merits of the CESTAT order.

Facts

The appeal was filed by the Department against an order dated January 16, 2008, passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata. The tax effect in dispute was stated to be less than Rs. 50 lac. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued a Circular dated July 11, 2018, in exercise of its powers under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. This circular fixed revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before various forums, including High Courts, setting the limit at Rs. 50,00,000/-. The circular applied to legacy issues relating to Central Excise and Service Tax and was applicable to pending cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Department is maintainable before the High Court given the revised monetary limits stipulated in the CBIC Circular dated July 11, 2018, specifically the limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for High Court appeals, and the fact that the tax effect in the present case is less than Rs. 50 lac? Arguments for the Petitioner (Department): The Department, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, implicitly acknowledged the applicability of the Circular by not pressing the appeal in light of the revised monetary limits. No specific arguments were recorded for the Department regarding the merits of the CESTAT order. Arguments for the Revenue (Respondent): No arguments were recorded for the Revenue in the judgment.