9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 478 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability/entertainability of the present Appeals - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act - Held that - despite having found that the present Appeals under Section 35G of the Act before this Court shall not be maintainable, the present Appeals are not required to be entertained and/or held to be maintainable merely because the Department earlier before the Hon ble Supreme Court withdrew it with a liberty to prefer appeals before this Court, more particularly when the question of maintainability of appeals before this Court has not been addressed before the Hon ble Supreme Court and as observed hereinabove, there is no finding and/or decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court with respect to maintainability and/or entertainability of these Appeals before this Court against the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The present appeals against the impugned common judgment and order 12th May 2015 passed in Appeal Nos. E/12386 & 12387/2014 under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act shall not be maintainable. It will be open for the Department to adopt appropriate recourse to law and approach appropriate forum; as may be available under the provisions of the Central Excise Act. With this, both the Appeals are dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues involved:
1. Maintainability of the Tax Appeals before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. Analysis: 1. Maintainability of Appeals: The Revenue filed Tax Appeals against a common judgment and order dated 12th May 2015, raising various questions of law. The respondent objected to the maintainability of the Appeals before the High Court, citing Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The respondent argued that since one of the issues pertained to valuation, the Appeals should not be entertained by the High Court. The Revenue contended that they withdrew their appeals from the Supreme Court with liberty to file them before the High Court. However, the High Court noted that as per Section 35G, if a question relates to the rate of duty or value of goods, the appeal should go to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Appeals before the High Court were deemed not maintainable due to the valuation issue. 2. Decision on Maintainability: The High Court emphasized that even though the Revenue withdrew their appeals from the Supreme Court with liberty to file them before the High Court, the Supreme Court did not opine on the maintainability of the Appeals. The High Court clarified that there was no finding or decision by the Supreme Court regarding the maintainability of the Appeals before the High Court. As a result, despite the Revenue's actions, the High Court held that the Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act were not maintainable and should not be entertained, leading to the dismissal of the Appeals without delving into the merits of the case. 3. Final Verdict: The High Court accepted the preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the Appeals against the common judgment and order of 12th May 2015 were deemed not maintainable. The High Court directed the Revenue to pursue appropriate legal recourse through the available forums under the Central Excise Act. Both Appeals were dismissed as not maintainable, without further examination of the case's merits.
|
