2018 (1) TMI 489 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Section 35G of the CEA, 1944 - Held that - In a recent decision of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax vs. M/s Raja Dyeing, Ludhiana, 2017 (3) TMI 1284 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT it has been held that where the order of the appellate Tribunal deals with a question of rate of duty or valuation of the goods for the purpose of assessment as well as with questions relating to other aspects, an appeal is not maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal is dismissed only on the ground that it is not maintainable under Section 35G of the Act.

Issues:
1. Delay in refilling the appeal condoned.
2. Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 5.8.2016 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench.
3. Substantial questions of law claimed by the appellant-revenue.
4. Relevant facts of the case.
5. Issue raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal.
6. Arguments presented by both parties.
7. Precedent cited regarding the maintainability of the appeal.
8. Decision on the appeal's maintainability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay Condonation:
The judgment begins by addressing the delay in refiling the appeal, which is condoned by the court.

2. Appeal Under Section 35G:
The appeal in question was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 5.8.2016 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The appellant-revenue raised substantial questions of law related to dropping the demand towards duty pertaining to the extended period of limitation, justification of setting aside penalties, and other related issues.

3. Facts of the Case:
The respondent-assessee, a manufacturing company, was found to be retaining a portion of sales tax collected from customers, leading to a dispute regarding the central excise duty not paid on the retained amount. Show cause notices were issued, demands were confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, and penalties were imposed. The Tribunal decided in favor of the department but set aside the demand pertaining to the extended period of limitation.

4. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The issue of the appeal's maintainability was raised, with the respondent-assessee arguing that the appeal under Section 35G was not permissible due to the Tribunal's findings on classification/valuation of goods. The appellant-revenue contended that the questions raised were not related to classification/valuation, justifying the appeal under Section 35G.

5. Precedent and Decision:
Citing a recent decision, the court held that an appeal under Section 35G is not maintainable when the Tribunal's order deals with questions of rate of duty or valuation of goods for assessment along with other aspects. Referring to previous cases, the court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of its non-maintainability under Section 35G of the Act.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal based on the precedent cited, emphasizing that the nature of the questions addressed in the Tribunal's order determines the appeal's maintainability under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

← Previous Next →