9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 625 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - Method of Valuation - sale to related as well as unrelated parties - Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000 is not applicable, since the Respondent did not sell its 100% production to or through related person? - HELD THAT - The issue arising in these Appeals relates to appropriate valuation of goods sold by the Respondent on the application of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000. Thus, the issue clearly relates to valuation of good and its appeal to this Court would not be maintainable in view of Section 35G of the said Act. This as the above Section 35G of the Act specifically excludes the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain Appeals, inter alia, on question having relates to valuation of goods. Thus, these appeals are not maintainable before this Court. These Appeals are disposed of as not maintainable before this Court.
Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding valuation of goods sold by the Respondent. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay pertains to two appeals challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The central issue in these appeals revolves around the appropriate valuation of goods sold by the Respondent in accordance with the Central Excise Valuation Rules of 2000. The primary contention raised by the Revenue was whether Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 is applicable, considering the Respondent did not sell its entire production to or through a related person. The Revenue posed a reframed question of law for the High Court's consideration, questioning the Tribunal's decision on this matter. The High Court observed that the issue at hand concerning the valuation of goods sold by the Respondent falls within the ambit of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. Section 35G explicitly excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain appeals on questions related to the valuation of goods. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the appeals challenging the valuation issue are not maintainable before the Court. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited in such matters, and as per the provisions of Section 35G, appeals on valuation issues are beyond the purview of the High Court. Furthermore, the High Court noted that the impugned order of the Tribunal, which favored the Respondent, was based on a decision by its coordinate bench in a similar case involving JMP Castings Ltd. The Tribunal's reliance on this precedent was crucial in arriving at its decision. The High Court highlighted that the Revenue had previously appealed a similar matter to the Supreme Court, indicating that such valuation issues are typically addressed at higher judicial levels. This further reinforced the High Court's stance that the appeals before it, concerning the valuation of goods, are not maintainable. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of both appeals as not maintainable before the Court due to the nature of the issue pertaining to the valuation of goods sold by the Respondent. The judgment underscores the limitations imposed by Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, which restricts the High Court's jurisdiction in entertaining appeals related to the valuation of goods under the Act.
|
