9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 52 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - SSI Exemption - Whether the CESTAT was correct in setting aside orders of the Commissioner Appeal when respondent availed both SSI Exemption as well as Cenvat Credit against the manufactured goods which are against the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramesh Food Products 2004 (11) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Nebulae Health Care Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2006 (8) TMI 74 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - appeal is dismissed as not maintainable under Section 35G of the Act before this Court - Decided against revenue.
Issues: Interpretation of Notification No.8/2003 dated 1 March 2003; Maintainability of the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
In this judgment by the High Court of Bombay, the Appellant challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The substantial question of law admitted for appeal was whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside orders of the Commissioner Appeal when the respondent availed both SSI Exemption and Cenvat Credit against manufactured goods, which was argued to be against the Act. The issue centered around the interpretation of Notification No.8/2003 dated 1 March 2003. The Respondent's counsel contended that the matter pertained to the rate of duty, making the appeal not maintainable in the High Court. The Appellant's counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramesh Food Products, while the Respondent's counsel cited the Tribunal's order in Nebulae Health Care Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. It was noted that appeals to the Supreme Court had been made in similar cases under Section 35L of the Act. The Court highlighted Section 35L, which specifies the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, indicating that the subject matter of the appeal fell within the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Section 35L. Ultimately, the High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 35G of the Act before the Court, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The judgment emphasized the specific provisions of Section 35L, leading to the dismissal of the appeal at the High Court level.
|
