Case Note & Summary
The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Nashik-II Commissionerate filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The respondent, M/s Mula Parisar Sarva Seva Sangh, raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court because the issue involved was about the rate of duty or value of goods. Under Section 35L of the Act, such appeals lie directly to the Supreme Court. The appellant's counsel could not oppose this objection. The court, after hearing both sides, upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum.
Headnote
A) Central Excise - Appeal Maintainability - Rate of Duty - Section 35G, Section 35L Central Excise Act, 1944 - Preliminary objection raised regarding maintainability of appeal filed under Section 35G when issue relates to rate of duty or value of goods - Held that appeal lies only to Supreme Court under Section 35L, not to High Court under Section 35G - Appeal dismissed as not maintainable (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is maintainable when the issue pertains to rate of duty or value of goods.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty granted to appellant to approach appropriate forum.
Law Points
- Appeal maintainability
- Rate of duty
- Section 35G vs Section 35L
- Central Excise Act
- 1944
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 81
Central Excise Appeal No.2/2016
Anoop V. Mohta, Sunil K. Kotwal
Shri Dwarkadas S. Ladda (Standing Counsel for appellant), Shri Abhay Kolte (Advocate for respondent)
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Nashik-II Commissionerate, Nashik
M/s Mula Parisar Sarva Seva Sangh, Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Remedy Sought
The appellant (Commissioner) sought to challenge the CESTAT order before the High Court.
Filing Reason
The appellant was aggrieved by the CESTAT order regarding rate of duty or value of goods.
Previous Decisions
The CESTAT had passed an order which was challenged in this appeal.
Issues
Whether the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is maintainable when the issue pertains to rate of duty or value of goods.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent raised preliminary objection that appeal is not maintainable before High Court as issue relates to rate of duty/value of goods, appealable only to Supreme Court under Section 35L.
Appellant's counsel was unable to oppose the preliminary objection.
Ratio Decidendi
An appeal involving issue of rate of duty or value of goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not maintainable before the High Court under Section 35G; such appeal lies only to the Supreme Court under Section 35L.
Judgment Excerpts
The preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability of present appeal filed u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) and the Rules made thereunder as issue is about rate of duty / value of goods.
The contention is clear from the plain reading of Section 35L of the Act that the appeal is maintainable before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History
The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Bombay High Court against an order of CESTAT. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The High Court heard the parties and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
Acts & Sections
- Central Excise Act, 1944: 35G, 35L
