2016 (10) TMI 270 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability - SSI Exemption - Valuation of goods and rate of duty - Corrugated Boxes not been exported but cleared for Home Consumption to manufacturers, who had further used the same in packing in the goods exported by them - Respondent submitted that identical issue subsequently came up for consideration in Madras High Court in Commissioner of C. Ex., Chennai-II versus Vadapalani Press 2015 (1) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where in a case involving identical facts requiring interpretation of notification No. 8/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, it was opined that the issue involved being regarding valuation of goods and the rate of duty, the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court- Held that - appellant did not dispute the factual position especially the fact that Madras High Court opined that appeal before the High Court under similar circumstances requiring interpretation of notification granting SSI exemption limit was not maintainable as the issue was related to valuation of goods and the rate of duty. Therefore, by following the view expressed by Madras High Court, we find that the present appeals are not maintainable before this Court. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of goods and rate of duty calculation.
2. Levy of penalty on partners of the firm.

Valuation of goods and rate of duty calculation:
The High Court dealt with three Central Excise Appeals arising from a common order by the Tribunal. In CEA No. 38 of 2015, the issue was about the valuation of goods and the rate of duty calculated, while in CEA Nos. 40 and 42 of 2015, the issue revolved around the levy of penalty on the partners of the firm. The revenue raised substantial questions of law regarding the exclusion of the value of Corrugated Boxes for availing the SSI exemption limit, reliance on previous Tribunal orders, and the acceptance of those decisions by the department. The respondent's counsel argued that the appeals were not maintainable before the High Court as similar issues had been considered by other High Courts and the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. The appellant did not dispute this position, and the High Court, following the view expressed by the Madras High Court, concluded that the present appeals were not maintainable and dismissed them, granting liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate remedy.

Levy of penalty on partners of the firm:
The judgment primarily focused on the issue of valuation of goods and the rate of duty calculation. The Tribunal's reliance on previous decisions and the pending appeal before the Supreme Court were crucial factors in the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeals. The legal representatives for both parties presented arguments based on the interpretation of notifications and the maintainability of the appeals before the High Court. The High Court's decision was influenced by the opinions expressed by other High Courts on similar matters, leading to the dismissal of the appeals with the option for the appellant to pursue further legal recourse.