Commissioner Of Central Exciseandser Tax vs. Ms Rallison Electricals PVT LTD

Held

The Court held that in view of the circular dated July 11, 2018, the appeal stands dismissed as not pressed. The reasoning is based on the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before High Courts, which was fixed at ₹50,00,000/-. Since the appeal was before the High Court, and the circular dictates that appeals below this limit should not be filed, the current appeal, in light of this directive, was treated as not pressed. The ratio decidendi is that departmental appeals must adhere to the monetary limits set by the CBIC to reduce government litigation. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal in case of difficulty, implying that if the amount in dispute exceeded the revised limit or if there were other compelling reasons, the appeal could be reconsidered.

Facts

The appellant, Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur-I, filed an appeal against M/s Rallison Electricals Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The judgment notes a circular dated July 11, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT, High Courts, and the Supreme Court. This circular was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The circular stipulated that appeals would not be filed if the monetary limit was below ₹50,00,000/- for High Courts. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute for this particular case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant is maintainable in light of the revised monetary limits for filing appeals as per the circular dated July 11, 2018, issued by the CBIC? (Question of law, turning on Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994). Arguments for the Appellant: The appellant did not present specific arguments against the circular. However, the appeal was filed prior to the issuance of the circular. The appellant's action of filing the appeal implies a belief in its maintainability at the time of filing. Arguments for the Respondent: The respondent did not present specific arguments. The judgment relies on the circular issued by the CBIC, which sets new guidelines for departmental appeals. The circular explicitly states that appeals shall not be filed below a certain monetary limit.