9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1424 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - Penalty - Valuation - revised valuation of FOC materials supplied by GMI - loading towards drawing and design supplied by GMI to AVTEC - Held that - if multiple questions are involved in the matter, then the department has to raise all these issues before the Supreme Court by filing an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal of the respondent /assessee is pending before the Supreme Court - Central Excise Appeal No.44/2017 dismissed with liberty to challenge the order by filing an appeal u/s 35L of the CEA, 1944.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge against setting aside of penalty imposed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Interpretation of Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding appeals before the Supreme Court. 3. Applicability of legal precedents in determining the maintainability of appeals based on the nature of the order passed. Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge against setting aside of penalty The appellant, the Department, filed an appeal under Section 35-G (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent. The appellant sought to challenge this decision through the legal process. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 35-L for appeals before the Supreme Court The respondent's counsel referred to a Supreme Court order in a related matter, highlighting the requirement for the Department to raise all relevant issues before the Supreme Court under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The counsel emphasized the need to consider multiple questions involved in a case when filing an appeal before the Supreme Court, as per legal precedents and statutory provisions. Issue 3: Applicability of legal precedents in determining appeal maintainability Legal precedents from the Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi were cited to clarify the scope of appeal jurisdiction based on the nature of the order passed. The judgments emphasized that the nature of the order, specifically related to the determination of questions concerning the rate of duty or valuation, determines the appeal's maintainability before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The approach focused on the nature of the order rather than the specific issues raised in the appeal. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Central Excise Appeal No.44/2017, allowing the appellant to challenge the order by filing an appeal under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment underscored the importance of considering all relevant issues and the nature of the order passed in determining the appeal's maintainability before the higher courts, in line with legal precedents and statutory provisions.
|
