Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax, Rohtak vs. Raizo Plasto PVT. LTD., 201, Urban Estate-Ii, Hisar

Held

The Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. The appellant's counsel conceded that the amount involved in the dispute, ₹41,65,284/-, was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the Circular dated July 11, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) for filing appeals. Consequently, the Court did not delve into the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed on the ground of being below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals. The applications for condonation of delay were also dismissed as a consequence of the appeal's dismissal.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Rohtak (appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an order dated April 24, 2017, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had set aside an order in original concerning a demand of ₹41,65,284/- against Raizo Plasto Pvt. Ltd. (respondent). The appeal raised several substantial questions of law regarding the CESTAT's findings on the validity of the demand, the absence of goods description on weighment slips, and the evidence required for clandestine removal. However, at the outset of the hearing, the appellant's counsel conceded that the amount in dispute was below the monetary limit prescribed by a circular of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) for filing appeals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT's order dated April 24, 2017, setting aside the order in original, is perverse and untenable in law? (Question of law) 2. Whether the CESTAT erred in holding that the demand could not be confirmed solely because the weighment slip lacked a description of the goods? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the CESTAT's order is based on assumptions and presumptions, rendering it liable to be set aside? (Question of law) 4. Whether the CESTAT failed to appreciate that mathematical precision in evidence is not mandatory to prove clandestine removal? (Question of law) 5. Whether the CESTAT's order is against the settled position of law? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner (Appellant): Argued that the CESTAT's order was perverse, based on assumptions, and failed to appreciate that strict mathematical precision is not required to prove clandestine removal. The appellant implicitly relied on the order in original which confirmed the demand. Revenue (State): Did not record any specific arguments beyond the concession made by the appellant's counsel regarding the monetary limit.