TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Dismisses Appeal on Classification and Valuation Dispute, Emphasizes Lack of Jurisdiction</h1> <h3>LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IV</h3> LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IV - 2019 (367) E.L.T. 268 (Mad.) Issues:Classification and valuation dispute regarding certain goods manufactured and cleared by the assessee.Classification Issue:The appeal was against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the classification and valuation of goods manufactured by the assessee, including Integrated Mobile Missile Launcher, P-II Missile Launcher, and Launching Mechanism. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, leading to the challenge before the High Court. The Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the expert affidavit filed by Mr. R. Gowri Shankar, explaining the classification issues, was not considered by the Tribunal. However, the High Court held that it cannot interfere with the Tribunal's decision on the valuation issue. The Court emphasized that it cannot dissect the Tribunal's order into parts and must consider it as a whole. The High Court, citing statutory limitations under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, concluded that it lacks the jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's decision on the classification issue. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, and it was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.Valuation Issue:The High Court's decision primarily focused on the maintainability of the appeal rather than delving into the specifics of the valuation issue. The Court highlighted that its jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not extend to reviewing the correctness of the Tribunal's order concerning valuation disputes. Despite the appellant's argument that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the expert affidavit submitted, the High Court reiterated that it cannot interfere with the Tribunal's decision on valuation matters. As a result, the appeal was dismissed based on the ground of maintainability, and the original impugned order was directed to be returned to the appellant/assessee without any costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
