High Court: Appeal under Sec 35G Central Excise Act not maintainable

The Bombay High Court held that an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act regarding the rate of duty and value of goods was not maintainable as the same issues were pending before the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that Section 35(G) restricts appeals to the High Court on matters related to rate of duty and value of goods. Despite other issues raised, the appeal was disposed of as not maintainable, granting the appellants liberty to pursue the matter in the appropriate appellate forum. The judgment highlighted the limitations on the High Court's jurisdiction in such cases.

---

---

Issues:
Maintainability of appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act regarding rate of duty and value of goods.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court pertained to the maintainability of an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, specifically concerning the rate of duty and value of goods. The Court noted that a preliminary objection was raised regarding the appeal, as the respondents had already filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the same order and issues, which included the rate of duty and value of goods. The Court highlighted that Section 35(G) of the Act clearly states that no appeal lies to the High Court from an order relating to the determination of questions regarding the rate of duty of excise or the value of goods for assessment purposes. The judges emphasized that since the basic issues of rate of duty and value of goods were pending in the Supreme Court, the appeal was not maintainable in the High Court.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that although there were other issues involved, such as an extension of the limitation period, the provisions of Section 35(G) explicitly restricted appeals to the High Court on matters related to rate of duty and value of goods. Consequently, the Court accepted the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and disposed of the appeal as not maintainable. The appellants were granted liberty to approach the available appellate forum against the impugned order or issue, if advised to do so. The judgment concluded by stating that the appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, emphasizing the limitations set forth by the Act regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters.

---