9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 213 - SC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - High Court or Supreme Court - question is/was whether the respondents can be said to be manufacture of stators or not and therefore liable to pay central excise duty or not. HELD THAT - The aforesaid dispute cannot be said to be dispute either related to rate of duty and/or valuation. Only in a case where the dispute is with respect to the rate of duty and/or valuation, the appeals will lie to this Court. In any other cases where the dispute is with respect to the liability of the assessee to pay central excise duty the appeal shall be maintainable before the High Court under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act. In the case of Motorola India Limited 2019 (9) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT , while considering the pari materia provisions under the Customs Act, namely, Section 130 of the Customs Act, it is observed and held that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. In the instant case, the dispute has no relation to the rate of duty or the value of the goods and/or the dispute with respect to the valuation, the appeals were maintainable before the High Court under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the High Court has committed a very serious error in not entertaining the appeals and relegating the Revenue to prefer the appeals before this Court. As the High Court has not considered the appeals on merits and/or on any other question, we have no other alternative but to remand the matter to the High Court to decide the appeals in accordance with law and on its own merits. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court in not entertaining the appeals and relegating the Revenue to prefer appeals before this Court under Section 35L of the Customs Excise Act is hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court to entertain the appeals under Section 35(G) of the Customs Excise Act and thereafter to consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merits. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues involved:
Determining the maintainability of appeals before the High Court under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act or before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act. Analysis: 1. Issue of Maintainability of Appeals: The primary issue in this judgment revolves around the question of whether the appeals against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal were maintainable before the High Court under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act or if they should have been filed before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act. The High Court had ruled that the appeals were not maintainable before them and should have been filed before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this view. 2. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions: The Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of the Central Excise Act to determine the jurisdiction where appeals should lie based on the nature of the dispute. It was highlighted that appeals related to the rate of duty and valuation should be filed before the Supreme Court under Section 35L, while disputes concerning the liability of the assessee to pay central excise duty should be maintainable before the High Court under Section 35(G) of the Act. 3. Precedents and Legal Principles: The judgment cited previous decisions of the Supreme Court to support its interpretation. References were made to cases such as Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-1 v. Motorola India Limited and Asean Cableship Pte. Ltd. to establish the principle that appeals related to the liability of the assessee to pay central excise duty should be entertained by the High Court under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act. 4. Remand and Directions: The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in not entertaining the appeals and directing the Revenue to prefer appeals before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and remanded the matters back to the High Court for consideration on merits. The High Court was directed to decide the appeals in accordance with the law within a specified timeframe of six months. 5. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the High Court's decision and remanding the matters for fresh consideration. The judgment emphasized the importance of determining the correct forum for appeals based on the nature of the dispute, as outlined in the provisions of the Central Excise Act.
|
