1984 (12) TMI 192 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of an application for reference to the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Interpretation of Section 130 of the Customs Act concerning orders relating to the rate of duty of customs.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court versus the Supreme Court in matters relating to the rate of duty.
4. Applicability of Section 17(4) of the Customs Act versus Section 15(2) concerning the rate of duty.
5. The legislative intent behind special treatment for cases involving the rate of duty and value of goods for assessment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of an Application for Reference to the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962:

The applicants, M/s. Birla Jute Manufacturing Company Limited, sought a reference to the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, after their appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal pointed out that an application for reference to the High Court does not lie in terms of Section 130 of the Act in cases relating to the rate of duty of customs or the value of goods for assessment. The Tribunal had previously held similar views in other decisions, notably in the case of "M/s. Union Carbide India Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Customs."

2. Interpretation of Section 130 of the Customs Act Concerning Orders Relating to the Rate of Duty of Customs:

Dr. Gauri Shankar argued that Section 130 confers a valuable right of reference to the High Court on questions of law and that this right should be effectuated by the Tribunal. He contended that the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court should be express and not implied. He also argued that the primary issue was not the rate of duty but the scope of Section 17(4) vis-a-vis Section 15(2) of the Act, making it a fit case for reference. However, the Tribunal held that the dispute was fundamentally about the rate of duty, and thus, the application for reference was not maintainable.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court Versus the Supreme Court in Matters Relating to the Rate of Duty:

Shri K. Chandramouli, representing the respondents, argued that the legislature's intention was clear that matters relating to the rate of duty should be appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 130E(b) of the Act. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Act provides a special treatment for cases involving the rate of duty, and thus, reference to the High Court is precluded. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent was to provide a uniform approach to such matters, which is why appeals are directed to the Supreme Court.

4. Applicability of Section 17(4) of the Customs Act Versus Section 15(2) Concerning the Rate of Duty:

Dr. Gauri Shankar contended that the real issue was the scope of Section 17(4) of the Act, which deals with the reopening of assessments, rather than the rate of duty. However, the Tribunal observed that this argument was introduced at a later stage and that the primary focus of the dispute remained the rate of duty. The Tribunal concluded that the questions formulated by the applicants still revolved around the rate of duty, making the application for reference untenable.

5. The Legislative Intent Behind Special Treatment for Cases Involving the Rate of Duty and Value of Goods for Assessment:

The Tribunal highlighted that the Act's scheme indicates a clear legislative intent to treat cases involving the rate of duty and value of goods for assessment specially. This is evident from provisions like Section 129C, which mandates that such matters be heard by Special Benches with all-India jurisdiction, and Section 130E(b), which provides for direct appeals to the Supreme Court. The Tribunal reiterated that the purpose was to ensure a uniform and integrated approach to such recurring issues, which is why references to the High Court are excluded in these cases.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the application for reference to the High Court was not maintainable as the primary dispute was related to the rate of duty. The legislative intent was to provide a special treatment for such cases, directing appeals to the Supreme Court for a uniform approach. The Tribunal emphasized that it was bound by the statutory provisions and could not entertain the application for reference. Consequently, the application was rejected.