2016 (12) TMI 1459 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - issue involved is of rate of duty - Held that - As the issue involved in the present appeals is pertaining to the rate of duty with reference to exemption under N/N. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993, we find that the present appeals are not maintainable before this Court - appeal not maintainable - liberty to the appellant to avail of its appropriate remedy - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
- Substantial questions of law raised in the appeal.
- Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals before the High Court.
- Interpretation of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Dismissal of appeals and applications for condonation of delay.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court pertains to the disposal of multiple appeals, including CEA Nos. 65, 59, 67, and 68 of 2015, filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The primary issue raised in the appeal was the correctness of the Tribunal's decision in allowing the appeal of the party with consequential relief, despite allegations of wrong availment of SSI exemption and clandestine removal by both units. The appellant questioned the Tribunal's failure to consider corroborative evidence found during searches and investigations. Additionally, the Tribunal's ruling on the invokability of the extended period of limitation in cases involving fraud and willful suppression of facts was challenged.

A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent's counsel regarding the maintainability of the appeals before the High Court, citing the judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula vs. Special Machine. The Court noted that the issue at hand pertained to the rate of duty concerning exemption under notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993. In light of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Court determined that the appeals were not maintainable before it. The appellant's counsel did not contest this position, leading to the dismissal of all appeals and applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals due to the issue relating to the rate of duty falling outside its jurisdiction as per Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The parties were granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with the law. The judgment highlights the importance of jurisdictional considerations in appellate matters and the need to adhere to statutory provisions governing the scope of judicial review in tax-related disputes.