2019 (10) TMI 1145 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Appropriate forum - valuation of excisable goods - Section 35G and 35L (1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - As undisputedly the issues raised in the present appeal have relation with the valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment of duty, in our view the appeals filed in this Court will not be maintainable. The present appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, evasion of Central Excise Duty, confirmation of duty demand, imposition of penalties, appeal before CESTAT, substantial questions of law, maintainability of appeal before the High Court.

Condonation of Delay: An application was filed for condonation of a 2-day delay in refiling the instant appeal, which was allowed as the delay was deemed insignificant.

Evasion of Central Excise Duty: The respondent company was found engaged in evasion of Central Excise Duty through undervaluation and clandestine removal of goods, leading to excess payment receipts and short paid/not paid duty amounting to significant sums.

Confirmation of Duty Demand and Penalties: The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a duty demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and imposed penalties under Section 11AC of the Act on the respondent and its directors and accountant.

Appeal before CESTAT: The respondent appealed before CESTAT, which remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for denovo proceedings, resulting in the confirmation of the duty demand and penalties.

Substantial Questions of Law: The present appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's order, including issues of evidence, proof of clandestine removal, and the reliance on certain judgments.

Maintainability of Appeal: The High Court held that as the issues raised in the appeal were related to the valuation of exciseable goods, the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court under Section 35G and 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant was directed to file an appeal under Section 35L before the Supreme Court.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues involved, including the evasion of Central Excise Duty, confirmation of duty demand and penalties, appeal proceedings, substantial questions of law, and the ultimate decision on the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court.