2012 (7) TMI 898 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of clauses 4 and 5 of Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1st March 2003 for exemption benefit and clearance of goods with another brand name. Maintainability of appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Interpretation of Notification No. 8/2003-C.E.: The Tribunal was questioned for misinterpreting clauses 4 and 5 of the notification, allowing exemption benefit despite goods being cleared with another brand name. The issue pertained to whether the product can be marketed under only one brand name, and the Tribunal's decision to extend SSI exemption benefit to the respondent was challenged. The contention was that goods bearing a brand name/trade name of another person would not qualify for SSI exemption.

Maintainability of Appeal: The respondent's counsel objected to the maintainability of the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, arguing that the determination of the question involved the rate of duty of Excise or the value of goods for assessment, making it appropriate for appeal under Section 35L before the Supreme Court. Citing a precedent from Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, it was highlighted that questions relating to the rate of duty, valuation of goods, classification of goods under the Tariff, and exemption notifications fall within the scope of determination for assessment purposes.

Decision: The High Court concluded that the Tax Appeal was not maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the issue related to the determination of rates of duty payable by the respondent, falling within the ambit of Section 35L for adjudication by the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed with the liberty for the appellant to file an appropriate appeal under Section 35L before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for further consideration.