9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 728 - HC - Central Excise
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the maintainability of an appeal u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the High Court, based on the interpretation of a notification regarding exemption from central excise duty for industrial units in Jammu and Kashmir. Issue 1: Maintainability of appeal u/s 35G: The Commissioner of Customs and Excise, J&K appealed under section 35G of the Act, questioning the retrospective effect of a notification and the grant of benefits based on such effect. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeal should be before the Supreme Court u/s 35-L due to the direct nexus of the exemption notification with the rate of duty. However, the appellant contended that the issue was about the location of the respondent's unit, not the rate of duty, and thus the appeal was maintainable in the High Court. Issue 2: Interpretation of exemption notification: The dispute revolved around whether the respondent's unit, located in SIDCO Industrial Complex Bari Brahamana, was eligible for exemption under the notification meant for units in Industrial Area Export Promotion (EPIP) Kartholi, Bari Brahamana. The respondent argued that the exemption's eligibility was directly related to the rate of duty of excise, citing relevant judgments. However, the appellant maintained that the issue was about the unit's location, not the rate of duty or goods' value for assessment purposes. Judicial Interpretation and Decision: The High Court examined the provisions of sections 35G and 35L of the Act, along with the facts of the case. It was found that the issue of locational eligibility for exemption did not directly relate to the rate of duty or goods' value for assessment. Relying on the principle established in a previous Apex Court decision, the Court held that the appeal filed by the Union of India was maintainable u/s 35G. The objections raised by the respondent were rejected, and the appeal was admitted for further proceedings.
|
