Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2009 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (4) TMI 201 - HC - Customs

Issues:
Appeal by revenue under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 against CESTAT order on under valuation of goods; Preliminary objection on appeal competency before High Court regarding valuation of goods; Interpretation of Section 35G(1) barring High Court from entertaining appeals on valuation issues.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dealt with two appeals filed by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a CESTAT order concerning the under valuation of goods. The core allegation was focused on the under valuation of transactions. The High Court examined the facts of the case, highlighting that the appellant was selling only a portion of its produce to the second appellant, with no evidence of prices being lower than those charged from other parties. Additionally, the majority of the produce was sold to parties other than the first appellant, with no indication of higher prices. The Court concluded that the findings of undervalued circular transactions and duty evasion did not align with the case's facts.

Regarding the appeal's competency before the High Court, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent-assessee. It was contended that appeals concerning the valuation of goods fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as per Section 35G read with Section 35-L of the Act. Section 35G(1) of the Act was cited, emphasizing that appeals related to the determination of questions on the value of goods for assessment are not within the High Court's purview. The judgment clarified that appeals on valuation issues are only competent before the Supreme Court, as per Section 35L(b), thus rendering such appeals not maintainable before the High Court.

In conclusion, the High Court held that both appeals were not maintainable before them due to the specific provisions of Section 35G of the Act. The judgment advised the appellant-revenue to seek the appropriate legal remedy in accordance with the law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates