9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 1229 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - case of Revenue is that the appeal is not maintainable insofar as it relates to determination of question having relation to rate of duty - Held that - the disputes that fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court, as culled out by the Karnataka High Court in its decision in CCE., MANGALORE Versus MANGALORE REFINERIES & PETROCHEMICALS LTD. 2010 (9) TMI 756 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT in mind, a look at the facts of the case clearly establish that the issue pertains to rate of duty that is payable by the respondent. In such a scenario, in view of the above position of law, which exempts appeal to be entertained by the High Court in relation to rate of duty, the objection as raised by the respondent is liable to be sustained in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Navin Chemicals 1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - while this Court is not inclined to deal with the matter, while disposing off the present appeal as not maintainable, is inclined to grant liberty to the appellant/assessee to pursue the matter before the Supreme Court, if so advised. Appeal dismissed with liberty granted to the appellant/assessee to move before the Supreme Court.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Circular No. V/28/30/3/97-CX1 dated 20-5-97. 2. Limitation on the demand for excise duty. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court concerning the determination of the rate of duty. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Circular No. V/28/30/3/97-CX1 dated 20-5-97: The appellant/assessee contested the Tribunal's decision, arguing that Circular No. V/28/30/3/97-CX1, dated 20-5-97, should apply to their case. The appellant claimed that their goods were filled manually and not sealed with pilfer-proof caps, thus falling under the circular's provisions. However, the Tribunal held that the circular was inapplicable to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant sought to challenge this interpretation, asserting that their compliance with the circular exempted them from certain excise duties. 2. Limitation on the Demand for Excise Duty: The appellant also raised the issue of limitation, arguing that the entire demand for excise duty was barred by limitation. Despite this, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise without addressing the appellant's contention regarding the limitation period. The appellant contended that the demand notice issued on 2-6-2000 was beyond the permissible period for such claims, thus invalidating the duty demand of Rs. 133.89 lakhs and associated penalties. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court Concerning the Determination of the Rate of Duty: A preliminary objection was raised by the Department, questioning the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Department argued that under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, appeals related to the determination of the rate of duty should be directed to the Supreme Court, not the High Court. The Department cited the Supreme Court's decision in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, which clarified that issues directly and proximately related to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes fall under the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The High Court reviewed the statutory provisions and relevant case law, including the Karnataka High Court's decision in CCE, Mangalore v. Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Ltd., which supported the Department's contention. The High Court concluded that disputes concerning the rate of duty payable or the classification of goods are beyond its jurisdiction and should be addressed by the Supreme Court. Conclusion: The High Court, acknowledging the jurisdictional limitations outlined in Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, disposed of the appeal as not maintainable. The Court granted liberty to the appellant/assessee to pursue the matter before the Supreme Court if so advised. The appeal was thus dismissed, with no order as to costs.
|
