9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. The phrase in relation to are words of comprehensiveness, which might both have a direct significance as well as indirect significance depending upon the context. But, the phrase has to be read not in isoloation, but along with the pleadings in the case. The pleadings are pertaining to the non-application of mind by the Tribunal, while interpreting the provisions of Section 35B of the Act. Therefore, the contention that this Court has no jurisdiction cannot be accepted. Therefore, this Court holds that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain these Appeals. Coming back to the orders passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that when the dispute raised is touching the valuation of the property, the Tribunal has no discretion to refuse to admit the appeal. After admitting the appeal, it is open to the Tribunal to decide the issues raised on merits.The Tribunal has no power to review its own order. However, the Tribunal can pass order for rectifying a mistake apparent from the records within six months from the passing of the order, as contemplated under Section 35C (2) of of the Act. At least, after the mistakes being pointing out, the Tribunal below ought to have rectified the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, read with Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act and that the appellant ought not to have adopted the list price at factory gate sale for the payment of Central Excise duty. Claiming the duty on this basis, the Department issued 17 show cause notices, covering various periods, proposing to demand differential duty. Out of 17 notices, in 15 cases, the adjudicating authority confirmed the proposal and the appeals before the first appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner of Central Excise, were also dismissed. 2.4. On a further appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, but remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority, by the order, dated 02.03.2011. Based on this order of the Tribunal, (in the remaining two cases) the appeals pending before the first appellate authority were allowed and the appeals were also remanded to the adjudicating authority, in terms of the remand order of the Tribunal, dated 02.03.2011. There were two show cause notices, dated 30.09.2009 and 02.04.2009, pending adjudication before the original authority, viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. 2.5. The Assistant Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue involved relates to rate of duty or valuation of goods. 4.1. The answer by the Revenue is that, when the issue relates to valuation or rate of duty, neither this Court nor the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is justified. 4.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to look into the applicable portion of the provisions of Section 35B of the Act, which reads thus:- 35B. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order- (a) a decision or order passed by the Collector of Central Excise as an adjudicating authority; (b) an order passed by the Collector (Appeals) under section 35A; (c) an order passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963 ) (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the Board) or the Appellate Collector of Central Excise under section 35, as it stood immediately before the appointed day; (d) an order passed by the Board or the Collector of Central Excise, either before or af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The CESTAT may, at its discretion, refuse to admit an appeal, if the (a) duty involed or (b) difference of duty involved or (c) penalty involved is less than Rupees Two lakhs. However, such appeal cannot be refused if the issue pertains to valuation or rate of duty. Originally the limit was rupees fifty thousand which has been enhanced to Rupees Two Lakhs, by Finance Act (No.2), 2014, with effect from 06.08.2014. 4.5. Further, in the case of J.K.Sharma v. Government of India, 1993 (66) E.L.T. 66 (Mad.), it has been held that the minimum monetary limit prescribed under Section 131 B of the Customs Act, 1962, as per the proviso applies to each clause separately and not cummulatively and that under each clause, referring duty, differential duty, penalty or fine, the limit will be separately applicable (Analogus to Second Proviso to Section 35B(i) of the Customs Act, 1962). 4.6. The Tribunal has a power to refuse to admit an appeal, at its discretion, if the amount involved (duty or fine or penalty) is not more than rupees two lakhs. But, this would not be applicable, if the dispute is pertaining to cases other than duty or rate of duty or valuation of goods. Whether the dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore this Court are concerned, they are not upon the question relating to valuation of the goods or duty to be paid, but with reference to the nature and validity of the orders passed by the Tribunal. It is pointed out that the orders passed by the Tribunal are against the second proviso to Section 35B of the Act. Therefore, the issue to be decided by this Court is not with reference to valuation per se, but with reference to validity of the orders passed by the Tribunal in which the issue raised before the Tribunal was with reference to valuation. Just because, valuation is an issue to be decided by the Tribunal, the issue relating to validity of the order passed, in which valuation was an issue, it cannot be said that the issue before this Court is regarding valuation. 5.4. Under Section 35G of the Act, the reference to the jurisdiction is not only with regard to valuation but also with reference to questions in relation to valuation. The phrase in relation to are words of comprehensiveness, which might both have a direct significance as well as indirect significance depending upon the context. But, the phrase has to be read not in isoloation, but along with the pleadings i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is duty of the Tribunal to set it right. It is settled law that, when the mistakes are on account of: (a) palpable mistakes, (b) orders passed on inapplicable statutory provisions (c) points raised in appeal, but not considered and (d) wrong application of the judgment of the high court, are mistakes that could be rectified by the Tribunal (as mistakes being apparent on the face of the record). The facts of these cases and the orders passed by the CESTAT would clearly go to show that the orders have been passed, without understanding the provisions of Section 35B of the Act. 10. At least, after the mistakes being pointing out, the Tribunal below ought to have rectified the same. Instead, the Tribunal has passed a cryptic order without assigning any reason. On the simple ground that it is a non-speaking order, the order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside accordingly. As the order in the appeal is set-aside, automatically, the order passed in the Application for Rectification of Mistake becomes non-est in law. 11. In the result: (i) C.M.A.No.2586 of 2015, challenging the Final Order No.40382 of 2014 is allowed, but, however, remanded back to the Tribunal, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
