9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining whether an appeal would lie in this Court or not. In view of the fact that the impugned order deals with the question of valuation apart from the question of limitation, this appeal would not be maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - The objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondent is well founded - It is for this reason that we dismiss this appeal as being not maintainable. - CEAC No. 8 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2013 - BADAR DURREZ AHMED AND R.V. EASWAR, JJ. For the Petitioner Rahul Kaushik. For the Respondent Tarun Gulati, Neil Hildreth and Shankey Aggarwal. JUDGMENT:- CM No.1976/2013 (for delay in refiling) Badar Durrez Ahme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only issue that is sought to be raised is regarding the point of limitation and it has nothing to do with any question which is related to rate of duty of service tax or to the valuation of the taxable service. Therefore, according to him, the present appeal would be maintainable before this Court. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this issue at some length. The provisions of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and, in particular, sub-section (1) thereof read as under:- 35G. Appeal to High Court.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o limitation but the provision does not speak about the issues raised in the appeal, on the other hand, it speaks about the nature of the order passed by the Tribunal. If the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned before the High Court relates to the determination of value of the taxable service, then an appeal from such an order would not lie to the High Court. The learned counsel for the respondent had referred to the following decisions: - (1) CCE v. Punjab Recorders Ltd. [2004] 165 ELT 34 (Punj. Har.); (2) Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. v. CCE 2007 (213) ELT 658 (Bom.); (3) CC v. Ashu Exports 2009 (240) ELT 333 (Mad.). 4. However, we feel that although those decisions do support the contention of the learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
