Commissioner Of Central Exciseahmedabad Ii vs. Gujarat Cypromet LTD

Held

The Court held that the appeal should be permitted to be withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the communication from the Commissioner, CGST & CX, Ahmedabad-North, which directed the withdrawal of the appeal. This direction was prompted by the revised monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for preferring appeals before the High Court, as per CBIC instructions dated August 22, 2019. The appeal was found to involve a duty amount less than this revised limit and was also deemed not to involve substantial questions of law. The Court granted the permission as prayed for, disposing of the appeal as withdrawn. However, the Court provided a conditional liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal in case of any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the instruction dated August 22, 2019, was found to be inapplicable for any reason.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad II, the appellant, filed a tax appeal before the Gujarat High Court against Gujarat Cymproment Ltd., the respondent. The appeal was filed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's counsel, Mr. Ankit Shah, placed on record a communication dated September 19, 2019, from the Commissioner, CGST & CX, Ahmedabad-North. This communication instructed the withdrawal of the appeal. The reason cited was the revised monetary limit for preferring appeals before the High Court, set at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by the CBIC through instructions dated August 22, 2019. The appeal was stated to involve a duty amount less than this revised limit and did not present substantial questions of law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal, involving a duty amount less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- stipulated by the CBIC for High Court appeals, should be withdrawn? The appellant, represented by Mr. Ankit Shah, argued that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) had issued instructions on August 22, 2019, revising the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The appellant contended that this revised limit is applicable to pending appeals and that the current appeal falls below this threshold. Furthermore, the appellant asserted that the appeal does not involve any substantial questions of law as defined in prior instructions dated August 17, 2011. Therefore, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The respondent, Gujarat Cymproment Ltd., did not record any arguments in the judgment.