2018 (10) TMI 317 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - statutory appellate remedy before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Appeals-1, Coimbatore - classification of capacitor box/control panel under chapter heading 8537 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, read with Section-174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Held that - This Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on the sole reason that the petitioner has to avail the alternative remedy of appeal - this writ petition is disposed of, without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, with liberty to the petitioner to file such appeal, by complying with other statutory requirements, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of capacitor box/control panel under chapter heading 8537 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the first respondent confirming the classification of the capacitor box/control panel under chapter heading 8537. The impugned order demanded a specific amount, imposed a penalty, and confirmed the interest under relevant sections of the Central Excise Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The Adjudicating Authority considered the merits of the matter and arrived at a conclusion. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice and filed a reply before the impugned order. The High Court noted that the petitioner has a statutory appellate remedy before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Appeals-1, Coimbatore, as indicated in the impugned order.

The High Court emphasized that in fiscal matters, the aggrieved party should typically exhaust the alternative appellate remedy before the competent authority. The court stated that unless the order was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or was clearly erroneous, the writ jurisdiction of the court should not be invoked. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged the willingness to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority but raised concerns about the proper service of the impugned order, which might cause a delay in filing the appeal. The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order, with liberty to do so. It was specified that if the appeal is filed within the stipulated time, it will be considered on merits and in accordance with the law, without reference to the period of limitation. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.