Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Imran vs Commissioner Of Customs , C.G.O. ... on 22 May, 2023
Bench: Rajan Roy, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:35522-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 107 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd. Imran
Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Customs , C.G.O. Complex , Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Krishna
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dipak Seth
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
This is an application seeking review of the judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed in Custom Appeal No.3 of 2023.
Opposite party has no objection to delay in filing the application. Application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay condoned.
We have heard Shri Vaibhav Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant seeking review and Shri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
The only ground pressed by the counsel for the applicant is that while calculating the monetory limit for applying the litigation policy contained in the circular of the Government of India dated 17.12.2015; both redemption and penalty amount are to be added and if it is done then the amount involved in this case before the CESTAT was Rs.10 lakhs. According to the applicant's counsel it being so, the appeal before the CESTAT was barred by the said litigation policy. Counsel for the applicant has invited our attention to the order dated 07.11.2019 passed on the rectification application filed by the revenue before the CESTAT, wherein, there is a reference to an order dated 03.06.2013, copy of which has been annexed at page No.43 Annexure A-4 to the application, according to which, both redemption and penalty amount are to be added for application of the monetory limit prescribed in the litigation policy. Although, the said circular is dated 03.06.2013 and it refers to the earlier circular dated 17.08.2011 whereas the monetory limit has been prescribed for this case in the litigation policy dated 17.12.2015, even if redemption and penalty are added, the amount which was in dispute before the CESTAT in the appeal filed by Revenue, as suggested by the applicant's counsel the amount comes to Rs. 10 lakhs, whereas, the litigation policy dated 17.12.2015 says that appeals involving monetory limit below Rs.10 lakhs would not be filed or pursued before the CESTAT, therefore, even as per the applicant's own case, there is no good ground for review.
As regards the contention of the applicant that penalty was subsequently reduced by the CESTAT itself, which would reduce the monetory limit to less than Rs.10 lakhs and therefore, the appeal was not maintainable, we have perused the litigation policy. We find that different monetory limits have prescribed for CESTAT, High Courts and Supreme Court. For CESTAT, the amount is below Rs.10 lakhs and this would not apply in a case where after hearing the appeal, the penalty is reduced by CESTAT. The monetory limit for High Courts is Rs.15 lakhs. This aspect can be seen in the appeal of the revenue which is pending against the said order bearing Custom Appeal No.2 of 2020. Therefore, this also does not persuade us to review our judgment dated 29.03.2023 by which the appeal of the revenue has been allowed meaning thereby orders passed by the CESTAT have been quashed and there is specific direction that its appeal would stand restored for a consideration of fresh. Application for Review is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023
Gurpreet Singh
