Commissioner Of CGST And Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate vs. M/S. United Wood Products (P) LTD.

Held

The Court condoned the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal, being satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellant. The Court then disposed of the appeal on the basis of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Circular dated 6th August, 2024. The reasoning was that the appellant, the revenue, was unable to pursue the appeal due to the monetary limit stipulated in the said circular, given that the disputed duty amount was Rs. 3,51,705/-, which is less than Rs. 2 Crores. Consequently, the connected application (GA/2/2023) also stood disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBIC for revenue appeals are to be disposed of accordingly, even if delay is condoned.

Facts

The appellant, Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate, sought to file an appeal with a delay of 34 days. The appeal involved a disputed duty amount of Rs. 3,51,705/-. The appellant, represented by learned counsel, submitted that due to the monetary limit stipulated in a Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Circular dated 6th August, 2024, they were unable to pursue the appeal. The respondent is M/s. United Wood Products (P) Ltd. The application for condonation of delay (GA/2/2023) was also filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the appellant. 2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed in light of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Circular dated 6th August, 2024, which sets monetary limits for pursuing appeals, and the disputed duty amount being below this limit. Contentions of the Appellant (Revenue): The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and sought condonation. They further contended that the disputed duty amount of Rs. 3,51,705/- falls below the threshold specified in the CBIC Circular dated 6th August, 2024, rendering them unable to pursue the appeal. No specific provision was named, but the argument was based on the circular. Contentions of the Respondent (Petitioner): The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent.