2009 (1) TMI 112 - HC - Central Excise

Whether decorative laminate sheets are classifiable under chapter 48 or chapter 39 - in light of the fact that the issue is primarily relating to classification of decorative laminated sheets manufactured by the respondent, the High Court cannot entertain the appeal in light of specific provisions of Section 35L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - appeal is accordingly not entertained and stands disposed of accordingly

Summary

Issues:
1. Reliance on previous tribunal order for classification of decorative laminate sheets.
2. Dismissal of appeal by the Tribunal based on the limitation period under Section 11A[1] of The Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the Tribunal's reliance on Final Order No.113 and 114/96-C in classifying decorative laminate sheets under chapter 48, despite a previous Supreme Court judgment classifying the same product under chapter 39. The appellant questioned the justification of this reliance. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in its decision. However, the High Court highlighted that the issue primarily revolved around the classification of the decorative laminated sheets. Despite the appellant's arguments and citations of various judgments, the High Court emphasized that it could not entertain the appeal due to the specific provisions of Section 35L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, the High Court refrained from delving into the merits of the issue or the judgments cited during the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without further discussion.

Issue 2:
The second issue pertained to the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal concerning the recovery demand within the normal limitation period under the retrospectively amended provisions of Section 11A[1] of The Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant sought to recover the demand issued within the stipulated limitation period. However, the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal raised questions regarding the justification of such dismissal. Despite the appellant's contentions and arguments put forth during the proceedings, the High Court, due to the nature of the issue falling under the purview of Section 35L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, refrained from entertaining the appeal. Consequently, the High Court did not engage in a detailed discussion on the merits of the issue or the arguments presented, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without further analysis.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment emphasized the limitations imposed by specific provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which restricted the Court from entertaining the appeals raised by the appellant. The Court's decision to not delve into the merits of the issues or the judgments cited during the proceedings resulted in the dismissal of the appeal without further elaboration or analysis.