9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 590 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - eligibility for benefit of Exemption N/N. 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 - goods manufactured on such plant and machineries that were installed after cut off date 31.12.2005 - expansion of the unit after cut-off date 31.12.2005 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - Reliance can be placed in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S RATNAMANI METALS AND TUBES LTD. 2019 (9) TMI 1275 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that The applicability of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995 is subject matter of the appeal. Such notification has a direct bearing on the determination of the rate of duty for the purposes of assessment. Under the circumstances, in the light of the provisions of section 35G read with section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, these appeals are not maintainable before this court. The present Tax Appeal is not maintainable before this Court and the only remedy available to the revenue is to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Act 1944 - Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Benefit of Exemption Notification No. 39/2001-CE for goods manufactured post cut-off date. 2. Impact of unit expansion post cut-off date on availing exemption. 3. Invocation of larger period of limitation. 4. Demand of Central Excise Duty on Finished Goods. 5. Benefit of exemption notification without fulfilling conditions. 6. Treatment of factory as an extension of another unit. 7. Invocation of extended period for demand. 8. Dropping of entire demand without reason. 9. Penalty imposition justification. Issue 1: The Tax Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 questions the claim of benefit under Exemption Notification No. 39/2001-CE for goods manufactured post the cut-off date of 31.12.2005. The Court indicates that the appeal is not maintainable before them and should be filed before the Supreme Court. Issue 2: The expansion of the unit post the cut-off date and its impact on availing the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 39/2001-CE is raised. The Court determines that the appeal is not maintainable before them and should be taken to the Supreme Court. Issue 3: Regarding the invocation of a larger period of limitation, the Court notes that the appeal is not maintainable before them and suggests the Supreme Court as the appropriate forum. Issue 4: The demand of Central Excise Duty on Finished Goods, specifically in the case of Jamnagar Mobile Plant/Unit of M/s Ratnamani Metal & Tubes Limited, is contested. The Court finds that the appeal is not maintainable before them and advises approaching the Supreme Court. Issue 5: The benefit of exemption notification without fulfilling conditions is examined. The Court concludes that the appeal is not maintainable before them and directs the appellant to seek recourse at the Supreme Court. Issue 6: The treatment of a factory as an extension of another unit is deliberated upon. The Court deems the appeal not maintainable before them and recommends filing it before the Supreme Court. Issue 7: The invocation of an extended period for demand is scrutinized. The Court decides that the appeal is not maintainable before them and suggests the Supreme Court as the suitable forum. Issue 8: The dropping of the entire demand against the Jamnagar Mobile Plant/Unit of M/s Ratnamani Metal & Tubes Limited without providing a reason is analyzed. The Court finds the appeal not maintainable before them and advises approaching the Supreme Court. Issue 9: The justification for imposing penalties is considered. The Court determines that the appeal is not maintainable before them and directs the appellant to seek recourse at the Supreme Court.
|
