2014 (9) TMI 1096 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - levy of duty - whether this appeal is maintainable before the High Court u/s 35G or appeal will be maintainable before the Supreme Court u/s 35L of the CEA, 1944? - Held that - The said legal issue/question was examined in detail in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax v. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd. , where it has been held that the expression rate of duty would include levy of duty . By Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, amendments have been made to stipulate that rate of duty would include question of levy of duty. - appeals are accordingly returned without answering the question, for want of jurisdiction - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appeal is maintainable before the High Court under Section 35G or before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether the three appellants were liable to pay Excise Duty for manufacturing rechargeable electric accumulators.
3. Jurisdiction for appeals against orders of the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of maintainability of the appeal under Section 35G or Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Order-in-Original relied on notification No. 1/93 and dealt with the imposition of duty. The court considered whether the appeal falls under the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court based on the nature of the issue. The counsel requested time to examine this aspect, indicating the complexity of the jurisdictional question.

2. The Orders-in-Original found the three appellants liable to pay Excise Duty for manufacturing rechargeable electric accumulators under Chapter Heading 85.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The exemption notification was deemed inapplicable as they were manufacturing for another entity. The issue of levy or chargeability of duty was a key point adjudicated and decided by the Orders-in-Original, highlighting the legal consequences of the manufacturing activities undertaken by the appellants.

3. The High Court referred to a previous case to clarify the jurisdiction for appeals against orders of the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. It was noted that amendments by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 expanded the scope of "rate of duty" to include the question of "levy of duty." Consequently, the appeals were returned without answering the question due to lack of jurisdiction. The appellants were advised to file appeals under Section 35L of the Act if deemed appropriate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures for seeking redress.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal complexities surrounding the issues raised in the case, the findings of the Orders-in-Original, and the jurisdictional considerations for filing appeals in matters related to the imposition of Excise Duty.