Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax, Rohtak vs. Surinder Raizada, 201, Urban Estate-Ii, Hisar

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel did not dispute that the amount involved in the appeal was ₹10,00,000/-. This amount was less than the monetary limit prescribed in the Circular dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (Judicial Cell). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of not meeting the monetary threshold for filing appeals. The reasoning was based on the administrative instructions contained in the aforementioned Circular, which sets a minimum financial limit for appeals to be entertained. The Court did not delve into the merits of the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant, as the appeal was disposed of on a preliminary procedural ground. Applications for condonation of delay were also dismissed as a consequence.

Facts

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Rohtak, challenged an order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh. The CESTAT's order arose from Appeal No. E/719/2007 and set aside an order in original. The amount in dispute was stated to be ₹10,00,000/-. The appellant raised several substantial questions of law concerning the CESTAT's order. However, at the outset of the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not dispute that the amount involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed in a Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (Judicial Cell) dated 11.07.2018.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned CESTAT order dated 24.04.2017, 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 against the respondent solely because the weighment slip lacked a description of the goods? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the impugned CESTAT order is based on assumptions and presumptions, rendering it liable for setting aside? (Question of law) 4. Whether the CESTAT failed to appreciate that mathematical precision is not mandatory to prove clandestine removal, thereby committing an error in setting aside the order in original? (Question of mixed law and fact) 5. Whether the impugned CESTAT order is against the settled position of law? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner (Appellant): Argued the substantial questions of law as framed above, implying that the CESTAT's order was erroneous and contrary to established legal principles and evidence. The appellant sought to demonstrate that the CESTAT's findings were not supported by law or facts. Revenue (Respondent): No arguments were recorded for the respondent in the provided judgment extract.