2011 (3) TMI 506 - HC - Central Excise

Substantial question of law - Demand - Clandestine removal - Whether the revenue was justified in demanding the duty on the ground of clandestine removal of goods - The said question is outside the purview of an appeal or a reference to this Court under Section 35H of the Act earlier - It falls squarely within 35L of the Act to be determined by the Apex Court - Hence, the appeal is rejected reserving liberty to the revenue to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 35L of the Act.

Summary

The Karnataka High Court rejected the revenue's appeal challenging a Tribunal order due to lack of corroborative evidence for clandestine removal of goods. The Court stated that the issue falls under Section 35L of the Act and reserved the right for the revenue to appeal to the Apex Court.