Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to entertain the revenue's appeal where the controversy concerned whether the goods were manufactured by the assessee and were excisable.
Analysis: The substantial question raised went to the nature of the goods, their manufacture, and excisability, which fell within the category of matters involving determination of rate of duty or value of goods. Such questions are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and are outside the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 35G.
Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 35G, and the appeal was not maintainable before it.
Final Conclusion: The revenue was left to pursue the statutory remedy before the Supreme Court, and the High Court declined to decide the merits of the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute concerns whether goods were manufactured by the assessee and whether they are excisable, the matter falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not within the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.