2015 (2) TMI 608 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Section 35G - Held that - Revenue alleges in its appeals that the CESTAT fell into error in curtailing the period of limitation and not allowing the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act in the given facts of the case. It is also urged that clubbing of clearances which resulted in unjustified exemption is appealable to this Court under Section 35G. - Section 35G as it stands clearly excludes the High Court s scrutiny in regard to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment . That scrutiny is exclusively left to the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction under Section 35L (b) of the Act. - Appeals are not maintainable - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 35G in relation to the determination of questions on rate of duty or value of goods for assessment.
3. Applicability of precedent judgments in determining the maintainability of appeals before the High Court.
4. Allegations by Revenue regarding curtailment of limitation period and clubbing of clearances leading to unjustified exemption.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the maintainability of appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The respondents argue that the appeals are not maintainable, citing a Supreme Court decision and subsequent judgments by the High Court as precedents.

2. The interpretation of Section 35G in relation to the determination of questions on the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment is crucial. The court refers to the statutory definition provided in the Explanation to Sub-section 5 of Section 129-D, emphasizing that questions directly related to the rate of duty or value of goods fall within the purview of the said expression.

3. Precedent judgments play a significant role in the analysis, with the court referring to a Division Bench decision in Commissioner of Service Tax v. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd. The court highlights that the nature of the order passed by the Tribunal, rather than the content of the appeal, determines the appeal's maintainability before the High Court.

4. The allegations made by the Revenue regarding the curtailment of the limitation period and the clubbing of clearances leading to unjustified exemption are also addressed. The court notes that Section 35G excludes the High Court's scrutiny on questions related to the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment, reserving such matters exclusively for the Supreme Court under Section 35L (b) of the Act.

In conclusion, the court finds that the present appeals are not maintainable before the High Court due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters concerning the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment. The Revenue is advised to explore alternative legal avenues, and the appeals are dismissed accordingly.