2015 (9) TMI 407 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Section 35G - Held that - An appeal under Section 35G of the Act would not lie to the High Court in terms of sub-section 1 of that Section in relation to an order relating, among other things, 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. Any question having a relation to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment goes out of the jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Section 35G in view of the exclusionary clause provided by sub-section 1 of that section. The determination of the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment necessarily takes in the quantification of the goods involved in the assessment. - Appeal is not maintainable - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Appellate Tribunal under Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Error in law and misdirection by Tribunal in adjudication.
3. Quantum of beedies for assessment purposes.
4. Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 35G of the Act.
5. Maintainability of the appeal.
6. Absence of substantial question of law.
7. Dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in law and misdirected itself in adjudicating the appeal, while the counsel for CBEC contended that the raised questions were not meritorious for consideration in the appeal.

2. The primary issue considered by the court was the quantification of beedies for assessment purposes to determine the value of goods. The court emphasized that the quantification of goods is crucial for assessment and falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35G of the Act.

3. The court clarified that an appeal under Section 35G of the Act is maintainable concerning the determination of questions related to the rate of duty of excise or the value of goods for assessment. It highlighted that the exclusionary clause in sub-section 1 of Section 35G limits the High Court's jurisdiction in matters related to the value of goods for assessment.

4. Despite the attempt to frame questions of law, the court observed that the appeal lacked any substantial question of law. The court noted that the issues raised were more procedural in nature and did not involve substantial legal questions.

5. Ultimately, the court found no grounds to entertain the appeal or interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of substantial legal questions and the procedural nature of the issues raised during the proceedings.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the court regarding the appeal under the Central Excise Act, the jurisdiction of the High Court, and the absence of substantial legal questions warranting interference with the Tribunal's order.