9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 335 - HC - Central ExciseBenefit of nil duty - Whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of lower rate of Central Excise Tariff for the goods manufactured by it - Held that - As evident from the objection as made by the assessee, the issue pertains to rate of duty that is payable by the respondent, but for the notification in question. Therefore, the objection as raised by the respondent is liable to be sustained, more so, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. - Vs Collector of Customs (1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), which decision has been followed by this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs - Vadapalani Press 2015 (1) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 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/department to pursue the matter before the Supreme Court, if so advised - Appeal not maintainable.
Issues:
- Challenge to order of the Appellate Tribunal by the Revenue - Entitlement of assessee to lower rate of Central Excise Tariff - Appeal by Revenue against Tribunal's decision - Interpretation of Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act - Jurisdiction of High Court in matters related to rate of duty Analysis: 1. The High Court was approached by the Revenue challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing their appeal. The core issue was whether the assessee should benefit from a lower rate of Central Excise Tariff for their manufactured goods. 2. The Commissioner, based on a show cause notice, ruled against the assessee's entitlement to nil duty. The Tribunal, however, disagreed and favored the respondents/assessees. The Revenue, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the High Court. 3. The Department argued that the assessee should be taxed under a specific Central Excise Tariff heading as per the Assessing Officer's determination. The main contention by the respondents was that the issue solely concerned the rate of duty, suggesting that the appeal should be directed to the Supreme Court. 4. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act to determine the appeal's jurisdiction. The Court noted that the issue primarily revolved around the rate of duty, which might warrant an appeal to the Supreme Court rather than the High Court. 5. Citing relevant case law, the High Court acknowledged that the matter at hand concerned the rate of duty payable by the respondent, emphasizing the applicability of a notification. The Court referenced previous decisions, including one by the Supreme Court, to support its stance. 6. While the Karnataka High Court allowed the department to approach the Supreme Court in similar cases, the High Court, in this instance, declined to proceed further. The High Court disposed of the appeal, granting the appellant/department the liberty to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court if deemed necessary. 7. Consequently, the High Court concluded by dismissing the appeal but permitting the appellant/department to seek recourse in the Supreme Court if desired, without imposing any costs. The judgment highlighted the specific legal provisions and case law guiding the decision-making process.
|
