Instruction F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.8.2011 dealt with reduction of Government litigation by providing monetary limits of Rs. 5 lakhs/ Rs 10 lakhs/ Rs 25 lakhs for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT/High Courts and Supreme Court respectively.
CBEC vide Instruction F. No. 390/Misc/163/2010-JC Dated: December 26, 2014 has clarified that monetary limits would also be applicable to cases of recurring nature and no appeal can be filed except for the cases where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge or Notification/ Instruction/ Order or Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires.
Further it has been clarified that the term “case” needs to be interpreted in the context of National Litigation Policy which aims at reduction of litigation. In respect of a composite order which disposes of more than one appeal/SCN and the Department contemplates filing of appeal, every appeal would be a “case” and should be subjected to the threshold limit prescribed.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS)
Dated: December 26, 2014
Sub: Monetary limit for filing appeal in the Tribunal/Courts – reg.
Your attention is invited to Instruction of even number dated 20.10.2010 modified vide Instruction dated 17.8.2011 by which the Board had fixed monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed in the Tribunal/Courts by the Department. As stated in the Instruction dated 17.8.2011, the present monetary limits are Rs 5 lakhs/ Rs 10 lakhs/ Rs 25 lakhs respectively for appeal to be filed in the Tribunal/High Courts and the Supreme Court. Appeal is not required to be filed in cases below these monetary limits unless the dispute falls in the two exclusion category mentioned in para 3 of Instruction dated 17.8.2011.
2.The Board has been receiving letters from the field seeking clarifications on various aspects relating to implementation of the Instructions governing monetary limits for filing appeal in the Tribunal and Courts. Mostly, the clarifications sought is whether cases of recurring nature, whether involving the same party or even other parties, need to be pursued in litigation irrespective of the amount involved in such cases. The second issue relates to applicability of the threshold limits in various situations, mostly where the adjudicating/appellate authority disposes of more than one appeal in a common order which is sought to be challenged. Such order, generally involve cases of more than one parties, some of which fall below the monetary limit fixed for filing appeal in the forum of appeal.
3. It is hereby clarified that the existing Instruction regarding applicability of monetary limits to cases of recurring nature would continue. Therefore, all cases, including cases of recurring nature, are covered under the Instruction on monetary limits and appeal is not to be filed in such cases except those falling in the two exclusion clauses mentioned above. Even if an appeal is pending in the higher appellate forum, subsequent case of the same party or other party shall not be pursued further in litigation if the case falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board.
4. The Instructions mentioned above used the word “case”. However, the same was not defined. The term “case” needs to be interpreted in the context of National Litigation Policy which aims at reduction of litigation. In respect of a composite order which disposes of more than one appeal/SCN and the Department contemplates filing of appeal, every appeal would be a “case” and should be subjected to the threshold limit prescribed. To illustrate, if the Tribunal passes one composite order disposing of more than one appeal filed before it, and if the Department being aggrieved is required to file more than one appeal against the said Tribunal order, then each appeal shall be subject to the monetary limit prescribed.
5. There is no change in the monetary limits prescribed by the Board.
6. The above clarification may be taken note of while processing appeals before the Tribunal and Courts. Difficulties faced, if any, may be brought to the notice of the Board.
F. No. 390/Misc/163/2010-JC
(Archana P Tiwari)
Joint Secretary (Review)