Review of Orders by Commissioners - Below monetary Limits of Appeal - Review Must -CBEC

By Vijay Kumar

AS is well known, Orders passed by Commissioners are reviewed by a Committee of two Chief Commissioners and orders passed by Commissioners (Appeals) are reviewed by a Committee of two Commissioners. These Committees decide whether appeals are to be filed against the orders of the Commissioners.

Recently, to reduce Government litigation, the CBEC prescribed a monetary limit of Rs. 5 Lakhs for appeals to CESTAT.

Now that raises a question, whether the orders of Commissioners (Appeals) where the duty involved is less than Rs. 5 Lakhs, are to be reviewed by the Committees of Commissioners.

The Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh suggested to the Board that in such cases, the jurisdictional Commissioner may close the file without referring the matter to the Committees.

Board has examined the matter and explains, “orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are reviewed by a committee comprising of two executive Commissioners are per Section 35B(1B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 129A(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 86(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 for satisfying itself the legality and propriety of the said orders. The monetary limit below which appeal shall not be filed by the Department has been revised by the Board for reducing the litigation. However, the statutory requirement of review can't be waived by Circular/Instruction”.

So, the board clarifies that the review committee comprising of the Chief Commissioners or the Commissioners, as the case may be, shall review all the orders passed by the adjudicating authority as was hitherto being done, following the statutory provisions.

Board further clarifies that in case of anti-revenue orders of CESTAT/High Court, approval of the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner is not required to be taken wherein the cases are below the threshold limit prescribed and such cases don't attract Para 3(a) & 3(b) of the Instruction dated 17.08.2011.

CBEC Letter in F.No 390/Misc/141/2011-JC, Dated: November 02, 2011