9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 318 - HC - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - Value of clearances - exemption under Notification No.8/2002-CE, dated 1.3.2002 - Maintainability of appeal - Held that - The present appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and it is apposite to refer to Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - it is apparent that the question as to the applicability of a notification or a circular which has a bearing on the determination of the rate of duty is a question which has a direct and proximate relationship to the rate of duty and to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. In the circumstances, the present appeal which relates to the applicability of the referred circular, relates directly to the determination of rate of duty for the purpose of assessment and as such, in the light of the provisions of Section 35G read with Section 35L of the Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise v. JBF Industries Ltd. 2010 (12) TMI 437 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Appeal not maintainable.
Issues:
1. Applicability of Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular No.212/46/95-CX and Circular No.648/39/2002-CX.6. 2. Ignoring conditions and procedures under Notification No.43/2001 CE (NT). 3. Maintainability of appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the benefit of Circulars and Notifications. The first respondent, engaged in manufacturing printed cartons, availed the 'Small Scale Industries' exemption under Notification No.8/2002-CE. The department issued a show cause notice proposing to deny the exemption, leading to an appeal to the Tribunal, which directed verification of export particulars. The department appealed on the questions of law regarding Circulars and Notifications' applicability. 2. The Tribunal's decision was contested based on the maintainability of the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The first respondent argued that the appeal did not relate to the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment, citing a Supreme Court decision and statutory provisions. The court referred to Section 35G(1) and upheld the objection, emphasizing that the issue pertained to the rate of duty payable by the respondent if not for the notification in question. 3. The court relied on a Gujarat High Court decision, stating that questions on the applicability of notifications or circulars impacting the rate of duty directly relate to the determination of duty and value of goods for assessment. Consequently, the court held that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 35G and dismissed it without delving into the merits of the questions raised. The decision highlighted the jurisdictional limitations in entertaining appeals concerning the rate of duty determination. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Madras High Court provides insights into the issues surrounding the applicability of Circulars, Notifications, and the maintainability of appeals under the Central Excise Act, 1944, offering a comprehensive understanding of the legal complexities involved in the case.
|
