9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 596 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - Section 35G - whether appeal maintainable before Supreme Court in view of the fact that The Rate of Duty and Value of Goods are the basic issues? - Held that - It is clear from the provisions of section 35(G) itself that no appeal lies to the High Court from the Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal being the order relating among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise and/or to the value of goods for the purposes of amendment - the present appeal is disposed of as not maintainable.
Issues:
Maintainability of appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act regarding rate of duty and value of goods. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court pertained to the maintainability of an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, specifically concerning the rate of duty and value of goods. The Court noted that a preliminary objection was raised regarding the appeal, as the respondents had already filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the same order and issues, which included the rate of duty and value of goods. The Court highlighted that Section 35(G) of the Act clearly states that no appeal lies to the High Court from an order relating to the determination of questions regarding the rate of duty of excise or the value of goods for assessment purposes. The judges emphasized that since the basic issues of rate of duty and value of goods were pending in the Supreme Court, the appeal was not maintainable in the High Court. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that although there were other issues involved, such as an extension of the limitation period, the provisions of Section 35(G) explicitly restricted appeals to the High Court on matters related to rate of duty and value of goods. Consequently, the Court accepted the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and disposed of the appeal as not maintainable. The appellants were granted liberty to approach the available appellate forum against the impugned order or issue, if advised to do so. The judgment concluded by stating that the appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, emphasizing the limitations set forth by the Act regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters.
|
