2015 (7) TMI 747 - HC - Customs

Denial of benefit of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 - Held that - Following the decision of Commr. of S.T., Bangalore v. Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (I) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (4) TMI 500 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , it is held that the issue is of interpretation of notification, therefore is matter should lie before Apex Court - Appeal not maintainable - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of terms and conditions of a customs notification regarding export obligation fulfillment, determination of value addition for achieving benefits, retrospective or prospective application of a notification, jurisdiction of High Court under Section 35G of the Act, and referral to the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:

1. Fulfillment of Export Obligation:
The primary issue raised in the appeals pertains to whether the respondents fulfilled the terms and conditions of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus. dated 10-9-2004 and discharged the export obligation as specified. The question of compliance with the notification's conditions is crucial for determining the eligibility of the respondents for certain benefits.

2. Determination of Value Addition:
Another significant question raised is regarding the determination of value addition for achieving benefits. The Hon'ble Tribunal's order is being challenged on the grounds that the prescribed value addition was not fully achieved by the respondents. The calculation method for value addition, as per the Hand Book of Procedures, is under scrutiny in this context.

3. Retrospective or Prospective Application of Notification:
A key argument presented is whether the notification in question should be applied retrospectively or prospectively. The issue of the timing of payment of service tax in relation to the notification is being debated to ascertain the entitlement of the assessee to benefit from the notification. The interpretation of the notification's temporal application is crucial for determining its legal effect.

4. Jurisdiction of High Court and Referral to Apex Court:
The judgment delves into the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35G of the Act, outlining disputes that fall outside its purview. It emphasizes that certain disputes, including those related to service tax, taxable services, and classification of services, are to be adjudicated by the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the appeals in question are dismissed with the option to appeal to the Apex Court.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the intricate legal issues surrounding the interpretation of customs notifications, fulfillment of export obligations, determination of value addition, and the temporal application of notifications. It underscores the delineation of jurisdiction between the High Court and the Apex Court for resolving specific disputes under the relevant statutory provisions.