9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td., [2010 (12) TMI 437 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], held that appeal is not maintainable. - Court is not inclined to deal with the matter, while disposing off the present appeal as not maintainable, is inclined to grant liberty to the appellant/Revenue to pursue the matter in accordance with law, if so advised. - Decide against Revenue. - C.M.A. No. 30 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2015 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinish Pathiyil For the Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT (Delivered By R. Sudhakar, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue, the assessee is before this Court challenging the said order by filing the present appeal. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption under Notification No.8/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 show cause notice was issued proposing to deny the benefit of SSI notification, recovery of duty and imposition of penalty. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. On appeal at the instance of the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand and penalty. Hence, the Department pursued the matter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal holding as follows: We have heard both sides. We find that undisputedly Modi Industries was a proprietary concern, that its proprietor Dinesh Modi had expired in 1999, that the period of dispute in the present case is 1.4.2000 to 31.8.2000. Ld. counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (emphasis supplied) 7. Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that an appeal on the issue relating to rate of duty of excise or value of goods for purposes of assessment would not lie before this Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Navin Chemicals Manufacturing and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (68) ELT 3 (SC), held as under: 11. It will be seen that sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at relates directly and proximately to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. The statutory definition of the said expression indicates that it has to be read to limit its application to cases where, for the purposes of assessment, questions arise directly and proximately as to the rate of duty or the value of the goods. 12. This, then, is the test for the purposes of determining whether or not an appeal should be heard by a Special Bench of CEGAT, whether or not a reference by CEGAT lies to the High Court and whether or not an appeal lies directly to the Supreme Court from a decision of CEGAT: does the question that requires determination have a direct and proximate relation, for the purposes of assessment, to the rate of duty a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
