2019 (9) TMI 138 - HC - Customs

Valuation of goods - under-valuation and Hawala remittance - maintainability of appeal before the High Court - Sections 130(1) and 130 (E) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - No appeal would lie to the High Court, where the cases involve any issue relating to rate of duty or value of goods for the purposes of assessment, and that, in all such cases, the assessee would have to move the Supreme Court, under Section 130(E). It appears that basically this appeal is challenging the valuation of the goods. So far as this challenge is concerned, the present appeal is not tenable in law. This appeal is dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 130(1) and 130(E) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27th February, 2019, related to the under-valuation of goods. The show cause notice was issued on 11th August, 2016, regarding the imported reflective luminescent film. The appellant admitted under-valuation and duty liability for past consignments. The Commissioner's order dated 14th June, 2017, confirmed a differential duty, penalty, and interest. The appeal before the CESTAT was dismissed on 5th February, 2018. The High Court noted that the appeal primarily challenged the valuation of goods, which falls under Sections 130(1) and 130(E) of the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court clarified that no appeal would lie before it if the case involves issues related to the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment purposes. The appellant would have to approach the Supreme Court under Section 130(E) in such cases.

2. The High Court referred to the case of Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Bharti Airtel, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 801, to emphasize that the maintainability of an appeal before the Supreme Court or the High Court depends on the issues in the order passed by the Tribunal. Even if the specific issue is not raised in the appeal, if it relates to the rate of duty or value of goods, the appeal must be filed with the Supreme Court. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of jurisdiction, as the issue of valuation fell under the purview of the Supreme Court. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.