2013 (10) TMI 1251 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of Appeal to High Court u/s 35L of CE Act 1944 SSI Exemption Held that - Following Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula Vs. Special Machine 2009 (8) TMI 143 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - the dispute as to whether the assessee was covered by the exemption notification, was related directly and proximately to rate of duty applicable thus the appeal on question of law before the High Court would not be maintainable and an appeal u/s 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be maintainable before the Supreme Court the only remedy available to the revenue is to file appeal before the Supreme Court u/s 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Registry is directed to return all the Tax Appeals to the appellant to present it before the competent Court having jurisdiction Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging judgment of Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on substantial questions of law regarding duty liability, corporate veil lifting, penalty imposition, and maintainability of Tax Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The Tax Appeals were filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, challenging the judgment of the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The substantial questions of law raised included whether the respondent could be treated as a manufacturer, the application of the principle of lifting the corporate veil, setting aside the order demanding Central Excise duty, and imposing penalties under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal's decisions were contested based on evidence of control, infrastructure, and ulterior motives to evade duty.

The Court considered the maintainability of the Tax Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The Counsel for the appellant failed to dispute the similarity of issues with a previous Division Bench decision, which held such appeals not maintainable in the High Court but under Section 35L before the Supreme Court. Citing precedent, the Court concluded that the present Tax Appeals were not maintainable in the High Court and directed the appellant to pursue the remedy before the Supreme Court.

The Court referenced a previous decision by the Division Bench and a case from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to support its view on maintainability. The Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling emphasized that disputes related to exemption notifications and duty rates should be addressed through appeals under Section 35L before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court held that the present Tax Appeals should be presented before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the proper jurisdiction for such matters.

In conclusion, the High Court found the Tax Appeals not maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act and directed the appellant to pursue the appeals before the Supreme Court under Section 35L. The Court disposed of the Tax Appeals, emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for resolving the issues raised in the appeals.