Case Law Details
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs Alishan Veneer & Plywood Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise against Alishan Veneer & Plywood Pvt. Ltd. The appeal challenged an order issued by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, dated June 16, 2023. The revenue raised two key questions of law, arguing that the Tribunal erred by relying on the Gujarat High Court judgment in Indsur Global vs. UOI, which is currently stayed by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the revenue cited a Board instruction stating that cases involving constitutional validity should be contested regardless of the monetary value involved. During the hearing, the court considered the arguments presented by the counsels for both parties. However, the court noted that the monetary limit of the case did not justify pursuing the appeal further, based on the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). As a result, the appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds of the monetary limit, leaving the substantial questions of law unresolved. Consequently, the court also disposed of the related stay application (IA No: GA/1/2024). The judgment underscores the practical considerations of monetary limits in determining whether to proceed with legal challenges, even when significant questions of law are involved.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, dated 16th June, 2023 being Final Order no. 75725/2023.
The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :-
a) For that the Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted an interim stay order against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of Indsur Global vs. UOI [2011(310)ELT 833 (Guj.)] and as such order of the Commissioner (Appeal) in Order-in Appeal No. 26/HWH/CE/2019-20 relying on the said judgment passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court is illegal.
b) For that the Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the Board vide Instruction F.No. 390/Misc./ 163.20 10-JC, dated 17-08-2011 had stated at point No. 3 that in case of adverse judgments relating to the “Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge,” then the same may be contested irrespective of the amount involved.
We have heard Mr. Kaushik De, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Atish Dipankar Ray, learned Counsel for the respondent.
We have perused the Order-in-original and we find that the monetary limit involved in the case would not permit the Department to pursue the matter in appeal before this Court in the light of the Circular issued by the CBDT.
Therefore, this appeal is disposed of on the ground of monetary limit and consequently, the substantial questions of law are left open.
The stay application IA No: GA/ 1/2024 also stands disposed of.
Author Bio
