Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, Surat vs. Harish Silk Mills

Held

The Court held that the appeal was not pressed by the appellant. This decision was based on Instruction F.No.390/Misc./116/2017/JC dated 22nd August 2019, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. This instruction mandates that no appeal where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and has been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. Since the admitted tax effect in this case was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, the appellant's counsel chose not to press the appeal. The Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed. However, it provided a liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the instruction was not applicable for any reason.

Facts

This appeal was filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Surat, against Harish Silk Mills. The tax effect involved in the appeal was admitted by both parties to be less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The procedural history relevant to the decision is the issuance of an Instruction F.No.390/Misc./116/2017/JC dated 22nd August 2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. This instruction stipulated that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should be filed before the High Court and was made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present appeal, with a tax effect less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, is maintainable before the High Court in light of Instruction F.No.390/Misc./116/2017/JC dated 22nd August 2019. Petitioner's Argument: The learned senior standing counsel for the appellant (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Surat) did not press the appeal. This implies an acceptance of the applicability of the aforementioned instruction, which bars appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent (Harish Silk Mills). However, the appellant's concession indicates that the respondent likely did not contest the applicability of the instruction.