Commissioner Of Central Excise Kolkata I Commissionerate Presently Known As Commissioner Of CGST And vs. M/S Bestlite Industries

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata I, along with the connected application. The Court found no reason to entertain the appeal as the appellant had failed to clearly suggest which exception clause, as per the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs' instruction dated 02.11.2023, was applicable in the present case. The Court explicitly noted that the excise duty involved in the matter was below Rs. 2 crore, which is a threshold for appeals under the aforementioned instruction. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of not meeting the criteria for entertainment, without delving into the merits of the CESTAT's decision. The ratio decidendi is that appeals to the High Court concerning excise duty below a specified monetary limit will not be entertained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates the applicability of a recognized exception, as per relevant instructions.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata I (now Commissioner of CGST and CX. Kolkata North Commissionerate) filed an appeal before the High Court at Calcutta against an order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had dismissed the Department's appeal on merits. The Department's appeal before the CESTAT concerned a tax amount of Rs. 79,564/-. The High Court noted a delay of 532 days in filing the present appeal, which was condoned. The Department's appeal to the High Court was dismissed because the excise duty involved was below Rs. 2 crore, and the appellant had not clearly indicated which exception clause from a CBIC instruction dated 02.11.2023 was applicable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata I, against the CESTAT's order dated 28.06.2024, which dismissed the Department's appeal on merits concerning an excise duty of Rs. 79,564/-, is maintainable before the High Court, given the monetary limit stipulated in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) instruction dated 02.11.2023. Contentions: Petitioner (Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata I): Argued for the maintainability of the appeal, implicitly suggesting that an exception to the monetary limit might apply, although not clearly specified. The appellant relied on the CBIC instruction dated 02.11.2023, but failed to articulate which specific exception clause was relevant. Revenue (Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata I): The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue in support of the appeal's maintainability beyond what is implied by filing the appeal. The Court's decision was based on the appellant's failure to demonstrate applicability of an exception.