Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Howrah vs. M/S Alishan Veneer And Plywood PVT LTD

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Howrah, has filed this appeal before the Calcutta High Court challenging an order passed by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, dated June 16, 2023. The revenue's appeal is directed against the CESTAT's decision which had relied on a Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. vs. UOI. The revenue contended that the CESTAT failed to consider that the Supreme Court had granted an interim stay against the Gujarat High Court's judgment. Additionally, the revenue argued that a Board Instruction dated August 17, 2011, advised contesting adverse judgments concerning the constitutional validity of an Act or Rule, irrespective of the amount involved. The respondent is M/s. Alishan Veneer & Plywood Pvt. Ltd.

Held

The High Court disposed of the appeal on the ground of monetary limit. The Court noted that the monetary limit involved in the case did not permit the Department to pursue the matter in appeal before the High Court, in light of a Circular issued by the CBDT. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised by the revenue were left open and not decided on merits. The stay application was also disposed of. The Court did not address the merits of the CESTAT's order or the arguments regarding the Supreme Court stay and the Board Instruction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT erred in relying on the Gujarat High Court judgment in Indsur Global Ltd. vs. UOI, given that the Supreme Court had granted an interim stay against it, thereby rendering the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order illegal? (Question of law turning on the principle of precedent and effect of Supreme Court stay orders). 2. Whether the CESTAT failed to appreciate that a Board Instruction dated August 17, 2011, mandates contesting adverse judgments concerning the constitutional validity of an Act or Rule, irrespective of the monetary limit involved? (Question of law turning on the interpretation and applicability of Board Instructions). Petitioner (Revenue) arguments: The revenue argued that the CESTAT should not have relied on the Gujarat High Court judgment due to the Supreme Court's interim stay. They also contended that the Board Instruction dated August 17, 2011, specifically directs contesting matters involving constitutional validity, regardless of the amount, implying the present appeal should be heard on merits. Respondent (Assessee) arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent.