2014 (2) TMI 3 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Held that - Court earlier held that the appeal is not maintanable - In view of such order of the Court as also looking at the very controversy which the appellant raised before the Tribunal, it clearly emerges that this appeal would also not be maintainable. The issue has direct relation to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment in terms of Section 35G read with Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Manufacturer's appeal against Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order on Rectification Application.

Analysis:
The manufacturer filed an appeal challenging the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 30th July 2013, which was passed on a Rectification Application. The applicant argued that the Commissioner of Central Excise erred in confirming the demand without considering that all units were manufacturing excisable goods from material supplied by a specific company. The applicant claimed that the Tribunal's order needed rectification as it did not address this specific ground. The Tribunal rejected the rectification application, stating that they had already considered the issue and ruled in favor of the assessee. The manufacturer's representative contended that the duty computation involving material supplied by the specific company should have been left open for further consideration.

Furthermore, it was revealed that the Department had previously appealed the base order before the Court, which was dismissed, deeming the appeal not maintainable before the High Court. Considering this dismissal and the direct relation of the issue to the value of goods for assessment under specific sections of the Central Excise Act, the High Court deemed the appeal not maintainable and disposed of it accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining the appeal within the legal framework and jurisdiction as defined by the relevant statutes.

In this case, the judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to legal procedures and jurisdictional boundaries when appealing decisions. It underscored the need for parties to follow the prescribed statutory limits and avenues for redressal, ensuring that appeals are maintainable before the appropriate judicial bodies. The judgment's analysis focused on the specific grounds raised by the manufacturer and the Tribunal's decision, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court based on jurisdictional considerations and previous rulings.