TIOL-DDT 2758 · Tuesday, 5 January 2016 · story 1 of 5

CBEC Enhanced Monetary Limits for Appeals - Retrospective

14 12 2015 reported that CBDT has enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before the Tribunal and High Courts. This was done with retrospective effect for pending appeals. DDT asked, "Will CBEC follow suit?".

CBEC did.

By Instruction in F. No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC, dated 17.12.2015, CBEC enhanced the limits of filing departmental appeals before CESTAT to Rs.10 lakh and before High Court to Rs. 15 lakh.

18 12 2015 commented, The Board has not clarified whether these instructions are applicable for pending cases, as done by CBDT.This issue by itself could generate further litigation. Without waiting for litigation to mount, CBEC should clarify that the limits apply to pending litigation also. Please don't create litigation on litigation.

CBDT has directed that Pending appeals below the specified tax limits may be withdrawn/not pressed. Based on the CBDT instruction dated 10.12.2015, the ITAT, Ahmedabad passed an order on 15.12.2015 dismissing 251 Revenue Appeals in one stroke on the single ground that the tax effect in each of the appeals was less than 10 lakh rupees. CBEC and CESTAT should follow the example set by CBDT and ITAT.

DDT is happy to report that CBEC has reacted positively and clarified that the instructions issued on 17.12.2015 will apply to all pending appeals in High Courts/ CESTAT.

Board further directs, "Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners are required to take immediate necessary action in this regard for cases which are below the new threshold limits subject to the conditions of the instructions of even no. dated 17.08.2011 and 17.12.2015".

Board could have specified what the immediate necessary action is. They should have clearly directed the Chief Commissioners to withdraw all the pending appeals before the High Courts and CESTAT below the new threshold limits.

Please also see this interesting decision reported by us yesterday

CBEC Letter in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC., Dated January 01 2016

cited in this story