9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35L of the Act of 1944 - Upon a bare reading of the provision contained in Section 35G(1) of the Act of 1944, we are of the considered opinion that since in all the appeals enumerated in Table-A above, the basic question revolves around valuation of goods or applicability of Rule 9 or 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000, they are not maintainable as initially Section 35G of the Act. The appellant-assessee is required to challenge these orders of the tribunal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court as provided under Section 35L of the Act of 1944 - A perusal of the orders impugned reveals that the penalty in question has been levied under Rule 25/26 of the Rules of 2002 on the allegation that the valuation of the goods has not been properly made and/or value of clearances of all the manufacturing units need to be clubbed together. Hence, the appeals (mentioned in Table-B and Table-C above) are also required to be heard by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In any case, it will be in the fitness of the things that all the appeals involving common facts and question of law are heard and decided by one forum. The appeals at hands are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2018 E/50052/2018 Shree Bherav Tools Corporation vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Udaipur (Raj.) 6 103/2018 E/50048/2018 Shree Bherav Diamonds Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Udaipur (Raj.) 7 104/2018 E/50050/2018 Shree Bherav Engineers vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Udaipur (Raj.) 8 109/2018 E/50057/2018 Shree Bherav Amla Food Processors vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Udaipur (Raj.) 9 112/2018 E/50054/2018 Shree Bherav Tools Corporation vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Udaipur (Raj.) Item No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT Case No. Case Title 1 110/2018 E/50061/2018 Smt. Sangeeta Bohra vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Udaipur (Raj.) 2 113/2018 E/50055/2018 Smt. Sangeeta Bohra vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Udaipur (Raj.) 3 106/2018 E/50060/2018 Shri Mahendra Bohra vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Udaipur (Raj.) 4 102/2018 E/50059/2018 Shri Mahendra Bohra vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Udaipur (Raj.) The above referred appeals mentioned in Table-C question the imposition of penalty upon the Directors/ partners of the companies/firms. The adjudicating authority while pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of not taking of Central Excise Registration for all the units, clearing the goods without any invoice required under Rule 11 of CER, 2002, without assessing and discharging the duty liability, without submitting Central Excise Return and without informing department that trading units were owned by related persons as defined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. These acts of M/s.SBDTPL resulted in contravention of the provisions of Rule 4,6,8,9,10,11 and 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 9 and 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000 and thereby they have evaded the payment of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 3,49,75,706/- (₹ 2,91,28,460/- +₹ 58,47,246/-) during the period 2009-10 (Jan 2010 onwards) to 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively which is determined under Section 11A(10) of the Central Excise Act 1944 and same is liable to be recovered from them . The contentious issues posed by the appellants are as to whether the Rules 9 and 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 are applicable or not and also that in the facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of law . Upon a bare reading of the provision contained in Section 35G(1) of the Act of 1944, we are of the considered opinion that since in all the appeals enumerated in Table-A above, the basic question revolves around valuation of goods or applicability of Rule 9 or 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000, they are not maintainable as initially Section 35G of the Act. The appellant-assessee is required to challenge these orders of the tribunal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court as provided under Section 35L of the Act of 1944. It is true that the remaining appeals enlisted in Table-B and Table-C relate to imposition of penalty under Rule 25/26 of the Rules of 2002, but such imposition is dependent upon and relatable to the valuation of the goods and the fate of the appeals enumerated in Table-A shall decide or will have a bearing on the ultimate fate of these appeals. Hence, the remaining appeals mentioned in Table-B and Table-C will also lie before Hon'ble Supreme Court, inasmuch as the language used in Section 35G of the Act of 1944 is wide enough to include the appeals relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
