2011 (7) TMI 920 - AT - Central Excise

Application for stay - Classification - Rebate of excise duty - The provision of law not only speaks of non maintainability of appeal in relation to the specified orders but it also speaks of absence of jurisdiction to the Tribunal to entertain or deal with the appeal against such order - It is not in dispute that the matter relating to claim of rebate was finally decided by the lower authorities earlier which had been subjected to appeal and further proceedings in that regard - the appeals in question are not maintainable taking into consideration the provisions of law comprised under Section 35B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues:
Maintainability of appeals under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding recovery proceedings related to rebate of excise duty.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the maintainability of appeals under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning recovery proceedings linked to the rebate of excise duty. The JCDR raised a preliminary objection regarding the appeals' maintainability, citing the proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Act. This provision states that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal if the order pertains to rebate of excise duty on goods exported or materials used in manufacturing goods for export. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide such appeals, as per the Act, and the authority vests with the Central Government under Section 35EE. The term 'relate' in the context of the provision signifies a broad connection or association with the rebate of duty. The Tribunal cannot review orders related to the grant, rejection, or consequences of rebate claims. Even issues like classification are not within the scope of review if they were not directly involved in the recovery proceedings but were part of earlier final decisions. The judgment emphasizes that the present proceedings solely concern the recovery of amounts granted as rebates, not classification issues. Consequently, the appeals were deemed not maintainable under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and were rejected based on the legal provisions and the specific circumstances of the case.