2018 (12) TMI 340 - HC - Central Excise

Extended period of limitation - classification issue - Interpretation of statute - When Section 11AC fails to get attracted for want of essential ingredients, can the proviso to sub Section 1 of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 stands attracted, as both the provisions are mutually inclusive? Held that - The order impugned before us has to be tested as a whole and cannot be truncated, as requested by the learned counsel for the appellant. Assuming that if we accept the stand taken by the appellant before us and interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, the resultant position would be that the Department has to be held to be wrong in deciding the classification issue against the assessee - appeal not maintainable and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against final order of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Interpretation of Section 11AC and proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal raised a substantial Question of Law regarding the applicability of the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act when Section 11AC is not attracted due to essential ingredients. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in not applying Section 11AC and, therefore, the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11A should not be invoked. However, the Court emphasized that the impugned order must be considered in its entirety and cannot be selectively analyzed. The Court highlighted that if the appellant's contentions were accepted, it would imply that the Department was incorrect in deciding the classification issue against the assessee. Consequently, the Court held that the appeal was not maintainable before them, leading to its dismissal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant acknowledged that the issue before the Tribunal concerned the classification of goods manufactured by the appellant. It was noted that the Tribunal's decision on the classification dispute could only be appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, not to the High Court. Despite this, the appellant sought to sustain the appeal by arguing that since the Tribunal stated that Section 11AC did not apply to the appellant, the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11A should also not be invoked, resulting in the demand needing to be set aside. However, the Court rejected this argument and emphasized that the appeal could not be maintained before them, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the final order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court clarified that the impugned order had to be considered as a whole and could not be selectively analyzed. The Court's decision was based on the understanding that accepting the appellant's arguments would imply that the Department was incorrect in deciding the classification issue against the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable before the High Court, resulting in its dismissal.