Commissioner Of Central Exciseahmedabad Ii vs. Navneet Agrawal

Held

The Court granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal as prayed for. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. The Court noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the CBIC instruction dated August 22, 2019, was not applicable for any reason, the appellant would have the liberty to seek revival of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the appellant's submission regarding the revised monetary limit set by the CBIC, which rendered the appeal non-maintainable under the new guidelines. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn if they fall below the revised monetary threshold set by the revenue authorities, provided there are no substantial questions of law and the instruction is applicable.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad II, filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against Navneet Agrawal. The appeal was filed concerning a tax dispute. 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 of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for preferring appeals before the High Court, as per CBIC's instruction dated August 22, 2019. The appeal involved a duty amount less than this revised limit and did not present substantial questions of law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn based on the revised monetary limit for High Court appeals as stipulated by the CBIC? The appellant, represented by Mr. Ankit Shah, argued that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) had revised the monetary limit for preferring appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- through its instruction dated August 22, 2019. This instruction was applicable to pending tax appeals. Since the present appeal involved a duty amount less than this revised limit and did not raise substantial questions of law, as per earlier instructions dated August 17, 2011, the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not present any arguments against the withdrawal.