9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1155 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - challenge on the ground that the question involved in the appeal had a direct bearing on the rate of duty and value of goods for the purposes of assessment - error apparent on the face of record or not - section 35G read with section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - In the present case, the applicant has invoked the review jurisdiction of this court on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court in MEERA BHANJA VERSUS NIRMALA KUMARI CHOUDHURY 1994 (11) TMI 440 - SUPREME COURT has held that an error apparent on the face of the record must be an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. It may be pertinent to note that the learned senior standing counsel has not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 26.09.2019, the only ground which is urged in the memorandum of application is that the decision of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-1 VERSUS M/S MOTOROLA INDIA LTD. 2019 (9) TMI 229 - SUPREME COURT could not be shown to the court. Moreover, nothing has been pointed out as to how the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by this court is not in consonance with the above decision. It is manifest that the matter would require a long-drawn process of reasoning on a point on which there may conceivable be two opinions. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order dated 26.09.2019 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Review of the order dated 26.09.2019 regarding maintainability of the appeal. 2. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. M/s Motorola India Ltd. 3. Determination of whether the appeal pertains to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court versus the Supreme Court in tax appeals. Detailed Analysis: 1. Review of the Order Dated 26.09.2019: The applicant sought a review of the order dated 26.09.2019, which disposed of the appeals as not maintainable. The court had previously ruled that the question involved in the appeal had a direct bearing on the rate of duty and value of goods for assessment, making the appeal not maintainable under the provisions of section 35G read with section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Applicability of the Supreme Court Decision in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. M/s Motorola India Ltd.: The applicant argued that the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Motorola India Ltd., which was not brought to the notice of the court earlier, should be considered. The Supreme Court in that case clarified that appeals involving questions related to the rate of duty or valuation of goods for assessment should be directly appealed to the Supreme Court. The applicant contended that this principle applied to their case, making the appeal maintainable before the High Court. 3. Determination of Whether the Appeal Pertains to the Rate of Duty or the Value of Goods for Assessment: The applicant's counsel argued that the issue in the appeal was the applicability of an exemption notification, which directly relates to the rate of duty. The respondent's counsel countered that the question involved was about the applicability of the exemption notification, which is a matter for the Supreme Court, not the High Court. The respondent cited several judicial precedents to support their argument that questions regarding exemption notifications relate directly to the rate of duty and should be decided by the Supreme Court. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court Versus the Supreme Court in Tax Appeals: The court examined various precedents, including decisions from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Madras High Court, and Kerala High Court, which held that issues relating to exemption notifications and their conditions pertain to the rate of duty and should be appealed to the Supreme Court. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing and Trading Company Limited v. Collector of Customs, which emphasized that disputes regarding exemption notifications have a direct and proximate relationship to the rate of duty for assessment purposes. Conclusion: The court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 26.09.2019. The court noted that the review jurisdiction is limited to correcting grave and palpable errors and not for re-evaluating the merits of the case. Since the matter required a long-drawn process of reasoning and could have two conceivable opinions, it did not qualify as an error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the applications for review were rejected, and the original order was upheld. The court discharged the notice with no order as to costs.
|
