9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court.' The present appeal is rejected with liberty to avail remedies under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in accordance with law. Needless to state that the Appellant is free to claim benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period during which the present appeal was pending before this court - Appeal disposed off. - JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH AND JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA For the Appellant Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondent Through: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sahu, Adv. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Excise Act ), read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, challenging the impugned order dated 08 November, 2023 of (F.O.No.51530/2023) passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) in Appeal No. 50472 of 2017. The impugned order set aside the Order-in-Original No. 20/2016-ST dated 06 December, 2016, wherein the Directorate General of Central Intelligence (Adjudication Cell) had imposed Service Tax amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served and held as under: 9. Before we examine other judgments, it is important to examine the language of Section 35G in the bracketed portion which relates to matters in which appeal is to be filed before the Supreme Court. Section 35L of the F. Act is specific. The words/expression used is determination of any question in relation to rate of duty or value for the purpose of assessment . The word any and expression in relation to gives appropriately wide and broad expanse to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in respect of question relating to rate of tax or value for the purpose of assessment. Further, if the order relates to several issues or questions but when one of the questions raised relates to rate of tax or valuation in the order in the original, the appeal is maintainable before the Supreme Court and no appeal lies before the High Court under Section 35G of the CE Act. Referring to the expression other things in Section 35G of the CE Act in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited 2013 (30) STR 451 (Del), a Division Bench of this Court has stated: 3. On a plain reading of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 it is clear that no appeal would lie to the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear even by the provisions of Section 35G which provides for appeal to the High Court, as it specifically excludes the orders relating, among other things, determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Navin Chemicals Mfg. Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (68) E. L.T. 3 (S.C.) had an occasion to deal with the expression determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment . Though that was a case under the Customs Act, the provisions of the Central Excise Act were also taken note of, which are in pari materia with that of the Customs Act. The Apex Court specifically took note of sub-section (5) to Section 129D of the Customs Act and noted that this provision was simultaneously introduced in the Customs Act as well as the Central Excise Act by Custom and Central Excise Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988. Thus, Section 129D (5) is identical to Section 35E (5) of the present Act. This provision was interpreted by the Court in the following manner :- 11. It will be seen that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing for the appellant also fairly states that it is now well settled that when the question of chargeability of an activity is concerned such as in this case appeal would lie to the Supreme Court and would not be maintainable before this court. She however expresses an apprehension that the appellant may be disabled from filing an appeal before the Supreme Court in view of the internal instructions regarding the pecuniary limit for filing such appeals. 14. Further, in the judgement of Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. [2013(30) S.T.R. 451 (Del.)], Division Bench of this Court considered the issues on maintainability of appeal while considering the decision of CESTAT on limitation issue and held as under: 3. On a plain reading of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 it is clear that no appeal would lie to the High Court from an order passed by CESTAT if such an order relates to, among other things, the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or to the valuation of the taxable service. It has nothing to do with the issues sought to be raised in the appeal but it has everything to do with the nature of the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
