Dismissed

Commissioner of Customspreventive v. Minakshi Exports

Rajasthan HC29 Jul 2024CUSTA/79/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined jurisdiction to hear custom appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs against CESTAT orders. Finding the tax effect under one crore, the court held the appeals were not maintainable as classification issues are exclusively within the Supreme Court's domain.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed as they are not maintainable given the tax effect is less than one crore.

Commissioner of Customspreventive Vs Minakshi Exports — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:32001-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Custom Appeal No. 78/2018

¶4

Commissioner Of Customs Preventive, Jodhpur, Hqrs. At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle C-Scheme, Jaipur Raj 302005

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kailash Chand Agarwal, A-1, Gangwal Park, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

D.B. Custom Appeal No. 79/2018

¶11

Commissioner Of Customs Preventive, Jodhpur, Hqrs. At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle C-Scheme, Jaipur Raj 302005

¶12

----Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

Minakshi Exports, A-1, Gangwal Park, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. MP Devnath with Mr. Daksh Pareek & Mr. Arjun Singh

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶18

Order

¶19

29/07/2024

¶20

These appeals have been filed against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ‘CESTAT’) dated 10.10.2017.

¶21

[2024:RJ-JP:32001-DB]

¶22

[CUSTA-78/2018]

¶23

(2 of 2)

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the tax effect is less than one crore and issue relates to classification and falls within exception carved out in circular.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the instruction dated 02.11.2023, submits that the appeal is to be withdrawn as the tax effect is less than one crore.

¶26

Admittedly the tax effect in the appeal is less than one crore hence, the appeal is not maintainable. The contention that the issue of classification is involved does not help the case of the appellant for maintainability of the appeal before this Court. On the issue of classification the appeal is provided to the Supreme Court.

¶27

Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-1 Vs. Motorola India Ltd. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 563, held as under:-

¶28

“16. We are of the considered view that the Legislature has carved out only following categories of cases to which it has intended to give a special treatment of providing an appeal directly to this Court.

¶29

(i) determination of a question relating to a rate of duty;

¶30

(ii) determination of a question relating to the valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment;

¶31

(iii) determination of a question relating to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification;

¶32

(iv) whether the value of goods for purposes of assessment should be enhanced or reduced having regard to certain matters that the said Act provides for.”

¶33

The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

¶34

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶35

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶36

Chandan/Yogesh/54-55

Commissioner of Customspreventive v. Minakshi Exports

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Customspreventive v. Minakshi Exports

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Orient Township Developers Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(4)

M/S Golden Era Plantation India Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Customspreventive Vs Kailash Chand Agarwal

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Rajasthan Financial Corporation Ltd.

Shri V.M. Dawara Vs the Dcit