2015 (10) TMI 615 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Classification of goods - Held that - ince the issue relates to classification of product, appeal will lie before the Honourable Supreme Court and this appeal is not maintainable. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of blister pack as an excisable commodity, application of precedent from G. Claridge and Co. v. CCE, determination of whether the process of creating blister pack components constitutes manufacturing.

Classification of Blister Pack:
The High Court considered the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order. The substantial questions of law revolved around the excisability of blister packs. The Tribunal's decision on the excisability of blister packs was challenged. The Court examined whether the blister pack should be considered an excisable commodity.

Application of Precedent - G. Claridge and Co. v. CCE:
Another issue raised was whether the Tribunal erred in not following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G. Claridge and Co. v. CCE. The appellant questioned the Tribunal's adherence to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the mentioned case. The Court analyzed whether the Tribunal's decision aligned with the legal principles established in the G. Claridge case.

Manufacturing Process of Blister Pack Components:
The Court also addressed the question of whether the process involved in creating the two components of the blister pack - the perforated card and the moulded and cut sheet - amounted to manufacturing. Reference was made to the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of JG Glass Industries. The Court examined whether the process of creating these components met the standards set by the Supreme Court in the JG Glass Industries case.

Appeal Jurisdiction - Classification Issue:
The counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that since the issue pertained to the classification of the blister pack, the appeal should lie before the Supreme Court. The Court considered this objection and ruled that since the issue primarily related to the classification of products, the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with the appellant granted the liberty to file an appeal before the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of receiving the order. No costs were awarded in this regard.