Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Excise & Customs
New Delhi, 25th June,2018
1 All Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax
2. [email protected];Webmaster, CBEC
Subject: – Pr CC/CC’s Views regarding — Raising of monetary limits at various appellate FORA in legacy Central Excise & Service Tax matter only — Regarding
1. The raising of monetary limits at various appellate FORA in legacy Central Excise & Service Tax matters as a measure towards reduction of Government litigation has been in sharp focus in the past few months. This thrust was as result of the recommendations made in the National Litigation Policy which was formulated by the Government of India to reduce Government litigation so that the Government ceases to be compulsive litigant and instead becomes an efficient and responsible litigant. The purpose underlying this policy is to ensure that valuable time of the Courts is spent in resolving meaningful pending cases and thus reducing the overall pendency in the Courts at each forum.
2. Additional emphasis upon raising of monetary limits has been due to the introduction of GST and the consequent rendering of Central Excise and Service Tax law as legacy law for the most. Therefore there was a felt need to actively reduce litigation in this area.
3. In a recent meeting it has been decided to raise the monetary limits at CESTAT/HC/SC to 20 lakhs/ 50 lakhs/ 01 crore. The details regarding this is as follows :
Table – A
Resulting from meeting dt 25.05.2018
4. A suggestion has also been received from highest levels for rising monetary limit before CESTAT/HC/SC to Rs. 50Iakhs/Rs. 01 Cr/ Rs. 05 Cr respectively. It is proposed to ergonomically put up this along with approved proposal mentioned at para 3 above. The details regarding this proposal is as under:
Impact of proposed increase in monetary limits for legacy cases (All scenarios)
5. It is important to point out that the cases are covered by Sections 35R/83 of the Central Excise/Finance Acts respectively by which the Department is not precluded ” from filing appeal, application, revision or reference in any other case involving the same or similar issue or question of law”. Also Parties are precluded from contending that the Department has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by not filing appeal, application, revision or reference.
6. Of course where Constitutional validity of the provisions is under challenge or where notification/Instruction/Order /Circular is declared illegal or ultravires the matter would still be under challenge as per conditions set out in Instruction dt 17.08.2011 which still holds. This would mean that all cases would have to be studied from this aspect in any case even when they fall under the monetary limits.
7. Earlier in 2011, the proposal to increase monetary limit was actively considered by a breakaway group of CC’s in the CC’s conference. Moreover substantial rising of monetary limits could have issues which would be in the particular knowledge of the Zones/ field formations. It has therefore been directed to take the views of the Zones early before moving further in this direction. To facilitate urgent collection of the requisite views It has been decided to have a Nodal PRCC/CC who would then collate the views of all the others concerned. These are as under :
|Nodal PR CC/ CC||Zones from where feedback to be taken|
|CGST Delhi Zone||Chandigarh, Delhi, Jaipur, Lucknow, Meerut, Panchkula|
|CGST Ahmedabad Zone||Ahmedabad, Bhopal, Mumbai, Nagpur, Pune, Vadodara|
|CGST Kolkata Zone||Bhubaneshwar, Kolkata, Guwahati, Ranchi, Visakhapatnam|
|CGST Hyderabad Zone||Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Thiruvananthapuram|
8. The Pr CC/CC’s mentioned at column II of Table —C above are requested to send their views to the Nodal CC’s by 04.07.2018 to enable then to compile the views. The Nodal Pr CC/CC’ss are requested to please ensure that the final report in the matter is provided by 06.07.2018 so that the issue could be further put up.
(Ranjana Jha )
Joint Secretary (Review