2014 (9) TMI 563 - HC - Central Excise

High Court clarifies jurisdiction for Central Excise Act appeals, stresses procedural adherence.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-2 Versus M/s VIMLA ROLLING MILLS AND M/s KEY CEE ELECTRICALS

The High Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Reference to a previous case ... Maintanability of appeal before High Court - Jurisdiction - what is meant by the term “determination of any question having relation to rate of duty (for service tax) or value (of service) for the purpose of assessment” - Invocation of extended period of limitation - revenue prayed to refer the matter to larger bench - Held that:- Following decision of Commissioner of Service Tax Versus Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. And Others [2014 (2) TMI 1133 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - appeals are returned as they are not maintainable before the High Court. Decided against Revenue. Issues:Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The High Court determined that it does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present appeals under Section 35G. The order-in-original addressed various issues, including whether the activities of the respondent-assessee amount to manufacture, which is crucial for the levy of duty. Reference was made to a previous case, Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd., where it was established that the issues decided in the order-in-original would dictate the appropriate appellate forum, either the High Court under Section 35G or the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Act. It was emphasized that the issue decided by the Tribunal and raised before the appellate court is not relevant for determining the jurisdiction under Section 35G or 35L. The judgment highlighted the importance of avoiding conflicting appeals under different sections of the Act to ensure procedural clarity and fairness to both parties.The judgment further noted that in a previous instance, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court by the assessee against the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the High Court returned the appeals as they were not maintainable before it. The appellant-Revenue was advised to file an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if desired, and in compliance with the legal provisions. This decision underscores the significance of adhering to the appropriate appellate procedures based on the issues determined in the order-in-original, thereby ensuring consistency and fairness in the appeal process.