9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1166 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Section 35G read with section 35L(iii)(b) of the Central Excise Act - Extended period of limitation - Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act - suppression of value or not - HELD THAT - The present appeal filed by the Assessee in this Court is not maintainable before this Court but as per the provisions of Sections 35G and 35L of the Act, the said appeal would lie only before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the matter pertains to valuation of goods in question. The Assessee on merits of the case may contend that the requirement of affixing MRP would arise only when the actual sales takes place. But that question necessarily depends upon the valuation adopted by the Assessee for the said purpose whether valuation would be adopted as per CAS-4 Costing Method , which is cost of manufacturing 10%, or valuation as per Section 4A, which is MRP affixed as per the requirement of the Legal Meterology Act. Therefore, this contention of the Assessee on the merits of the case is a ground of appeal which can be raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court - The objection raised by the Revenue before us is valid and well founded and we agree that the appeal is maintainable only before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the relevant provisions of the Act. Present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable before this Court, with liberty to the Assessee to prefer such appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. 2. Imposition of Excise Duty within the normal period of limitation. 3. Maintainability of the appeal before the High Court. Issue 1: Applicability of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act: The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had given partial relief to the Assessee regarding the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal observed that the Department was aware of the assessment procedure followed by the Appellant and had advised them to adopt a specific costing method. Due to this advice, the Department could not allege suppression or misstatement to justify the extended period for issuing a show cause notice. The Tribunal held that the differential demand could not encompass the extended period of limitation. The demand beyond the normal period was set aside, and the matter was remanded for calculating the reduced duty liability within the normal period. Issue 2: Imposition of Excise Duty within the normal period of limitation: The Assessee, engaged in the manufacture of Automotive parts, challenged the imposition of Excise Duty within the normal period of limitation. The Assessee argued that since they transferred goods to their own depots in different states and not directly to consumers, the requirement of affixing Maximum Retail Price (MRP) should only apply at the time of actual sales by the depots. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the levy of duty based on valuation within the period of limitation. The Assessee contended that this question could be raised before the High Court under Section 35G of the Act. Issue 3: Maintainability of the appeal before the High Court: The Counsel for the Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court. The Counsel argued that the appeal should be filed before the Supreme Court based on the provisions of the Act related to the valuation of goods. The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable before them but should be filed before the Supreme Court. The Court reasoned that the appeal involved substantial questions of law related to the valuation of goods, falling within the scope of the Legal Metrology Act, and thus should be addressed by the Supreme Court. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that it was not maintainable before them due to the nature of the questions raised regarding the valuation of goods falling under the Legal Metrology Act. The Court directed the Assessee to prefer the appeal before the Supreme Court for further consideration on the valuation issues raised in the case.
|
