Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, Commissionerate vs. Shree Shakambari Silk Mills(100 Eou)

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court considered the fact that the CESTAT had reduced the penalty from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000. The Court also took into account a Circular dated July 11, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which advised withdrawal of pending appeals before the High Court if the tax limit was below Rs. 50,00,000. Although the learned advocate for the appellant had no instructions to withdraw, the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of the aforementioned circular and the reduced penalty amount. The ratio decidendi is that appeals involving amounts below a certain threshold, as per departmental circulars, may be dismissed by the High Court, even if the appellant's counsel has no specific instructions to withdraw, especially when the CESTAT has exercised its discretion in reducing penalties.

Facts

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, filed an appeal before the Gujarat High Court against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had reduced a penalty imposed on the Director of Shree Shambarkari Silk Mills from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000. The Revenue was aggrieved by this reduction in penalty. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against Shree Shambarkari Silk Mills. The tax period is not specified. The impugned order was passed by the CESTAT on October 5, 2017. The amount in dispute relates to the penalty amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the present appeal filed by the Revenue against the reduction of penalty by the CESTAT, considering the monetary limits for filing appeals and relevant circulars. Petitioner's Contention: The Revenue argued that they were aggrieved by the CESTAT's order reducing the penalty. They appeared before the High Court. Respondent's Contention: The respondent (Shree Shambarkari Silk Mills) did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment. The judgment notes that the learned advocate appearing for the appellant (Revenue) had no instructions to withdraw the appeal.