2018 (10) TMI 1734 - HC - Central Excise

Classification and valuation in respect of certain goods manufactured and cleared by the assessee - assessee is before this Court on limited ground that the Tribunal should be directed to re-hear the matter and consider this piece of important evidence produced by the assessee - HELD THAT - Unfortunately we are not persuaded to accept the stand raised by the Learned Senior Counsel for the assessee as this Court is denied of the power to test the order of the Tribunal pertaining to valuation issue. We are afraid that we cannot truncate the order passed by the Tribunal into two parts viz. (i) the Tribunal was bound to consider the additional materials placed by the assessee and we are told the same were considered and (ii) the other part is whether the decision of the Tribunal on the classification issue was justified. The correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 14-7-2017 has to be tested as a whole and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act 1944 is not competent to do the same as there is a statutory bar from testing the correctness of the order as impugned in this appeal. This appeal is not maintainable before this Court - the appeal is dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

Summary

Issues:
Classification and valuation dispute regarding certain goods manufactured and cleared by the assessee.

Classification Issue:
The appeal was against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the classification and valuation of goods manufactured by the assessee, including Integrated Mobile Missile Launcher, P-II Missile Launcher, and Launching Mechanism. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, leading to the challenge before the High Court. The Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the expert affidavit filed by Mr. R. Gowri Shankar, explaining the classification issues, was not considered by the Tribunal. However, the High Court held that it cannot interfere with the Tribunal's decision on the valuation issue. The Court emphasized that it cannot dissect the Tribunal's order into parts and must consider it as a whole. The High Court, citing statutory limitations under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, concluded that it lacks the jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's decision on the classification issue. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, and it was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

Valuation Issue:
The High Court's decision primarily focused on the maintainability of the appeal rather than delving into the specifics of the valuation issue. The Court highlighted that its jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not extend to reviewing the correctness of the Tribunal's order concerning valuation disputes. Despite the appellant's argument that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the expert affidavit submitted, the High Court reiterated that it cannot interfere with the Tribunal's decision on valuation matters. As a result, the appeal was dismissed based on the ground of maintainability, and the original impugned order was directed to be returned to the appellant/assessee without any costs.