Pr. Commissioner Of Central Tax CGST Delhi-South vs. M/S Anglo American Services INDIA PVT. LTD.

Held

The Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging that a substantial period of the delay fell within the timeframe of Covid-19 restrictions. Regarding the preliminary objection concerning the revenue impact being below the prescribed threshold, the Court accepted the appellant/revenue's submission that circulars are binding. Since the revenue involved in each appeal was admittedly below the prescribed threshold as per the circulars dated 17.08.2011, 26.12.2014, and 22.08.2019, the Court held that these appeals had to be dismissed on this ground. Consequently, the Court did not need to delve into the first objection regarding the forum for appeal. The Court directed the appellant/revenue to expedite the remittance of monies claimed by the respondent/assessee as refund, along with statutory interest, given the prolonged delay in resolution.

Facts

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax against an order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The respondent/assessee raised three preliminary issues: (i) that appeals under the exclusionary part of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should lie with the Supreme Court; (ii) that the quantum of tax involved was below the threshold limit prescribed in a circular dated 22.08.2019; and (iii) that the appeals were significantly delayed. The revenue sought to explain the delay by referring to Supreme Court orders regarding the extension of limitation due to Covid-19.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeals, if any, under the exclusionary part of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 lie with the Supreme Court? The respondent argued that such appeals would lie with the Supreme Court. The appellant/revenue did not explicitly argue this point, but their appeals were filed before the High Court. 2. Whether the quantum of tax involved is below the threshold limit prescribed in the circular dated 22.08.2019, thereby precluding the appeal? The respondent contended that the revenue impact was below the threshold. The appellant/revenue conceded that circulars are binding on them and accepted this position. 3. Whether the appeals are woefully delayed? The respondent argued that the appeals were beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The appellant/revenue sought to explain the delay by relying on Supreme Court orders in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [SMW(C) No. 3/2020], stating that the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 could be accounted for.