2018 (9) TMI 569 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to decide the appeal in view of 1st proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - first Proviso to Section 35B(1) and Section 35EE(1) - Held that - From a conjoint reading of first Proviso to Section 35B(1) and Section 35EE(1), it is clear that if the order relates, inter alia, to a rebate of duty of excise on goods, exported to any country or territory outside India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported to any country or territory outside India, the same would not be amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the remedy would be as provided under Section 35EE(1) of the Act. It is the Central Government alone which can annul and modify any order passed under Section 35A of the Act which is in the nature referred to in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35B of the Act. The Central Government, however, would do so only on application of any person aggrieved of such order. The issue which was subject matter of appeals before the Tribunal pertains to rebate of excise duty on export and, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide appeals under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeals involved a common question of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents, industrial units engaged in manufacturing Reclaim Rubber Butyl, availed Cenvat Credit and export-related benefits. Their claim for rebate on duty was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal accepted the appeals, prompting the Revenue to challenge the decision.

The Court found merit in the appellant's argument that, as per the first proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Act, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over matters related to duty rebate on exported goods. The relevant provisions highlighted restrictions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction in such cases. It was noted that the Central Government, upon application by an aggrieved party, could annul or modify orders falling under the specified category.

The judgment emphasized that issues concerning duty rebate on exports were beyond the Tribunal's purview and should be addressed through Section 35EE(1) by the Central Government. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was set aside, granting the respondents the option to seek remedy through the appropriate authority as per the law. Both appeals by the Revenue were allowed based on the lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal in matters related to duty rebate on exported goods.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Central Excise Act, highlighting the specific provisions governing appeals related to duty rebate on exported goods. The decision underscored the role of the Central Government in addressing such matters and directed the parties to pursue remedies through the prescribed legal channels.