9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that it is not maintainable under Section 35G of the Act. - CEA No.29 of 2017(O&M) - - - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. AMIT RAWAL, JJ. For The Revenue : Mr. Tejinder Kumar Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel For The Respondent : Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The delay in refilling the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 5.8.2016, Annexure A.5 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short, the Tribunal ) in Appeal No.E/4001/2012, claiming following substantial questions of law:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent-assessee M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Private Limited is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is availing CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of final products under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004. It is holding VAT registration number as required under the relevant rules. During the course of audit, it was noticed that it had been retaining 50% of the sales tax collected by it from its customers on account of tax concession allowed to it under Rule 69 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee raised an issue regarding the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that one of the issue which was adjudicated by the Tribunal related to classification/valuation of the goods for the purpose of central excise duty, and therefore, an appeal under Section 35G of the Act is not permissible. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to deleting the demand pertaining to the extended period of limitation and remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction to quantify the demand pertaining to the period within limitation are illegal and contrary to the settled law on the point. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the High Court. Once it is held that an appeal against the order of the Tribunal which deals with questions that fall within the ambit of Section 35L as well as other questions lies to the Supreme Court under Section 35L the mere fact that the party chooses to challenge only that part of the order that falls within the ambit of Section 35G would make no difference. In other words, it cannot be held that the party that chooses to challenge the order of the Tribunal only so far as it relates to the determination of questions falling within the ambit of 35G must file the appeal before the High Court even though the order also deals with questions that fall within the ambit of Section 35L. In that event, if the other party files an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
