2019 (4) TMI 1001 - HC - Central Excise

Jurisdictional Limits: Bombay HC directs appeal challenging CETAT's order under Central Excise Act to Supreme Court

The Bombay High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate ... Clandestine removal - under­valuation of goods  - Tribunal ignored the tangible evidence collected by the department - section 35G of the Central Excise Act,1944 - HELD THAT:- Section 35G of the Act specifically excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court with regard to the order of the Tribunal dealing with valuation of the goods for the purposes of assessment. In fact, Section 35L (1)(b) of the Act provides for an appeal from the order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of appeals relating to valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment. The submission that the appeal as filed involves not only issue of valuation for the purposes of assessment but also other issues warranting an appeal to this Court is not acceptable. Even if the order of the Tribunal has dealt with other issues besides valuation, the appeal has to be before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Besides, an order of the Tribunal cannot be bifurcated. It has to be challenged as a whole before one forum. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Appeal disposed off. Issues:Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on substantial questions of law regarding evasion of duty and valuation of goods for assessment.Analysis:The appeal before the Bombay High Court challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, dated 14th December 2005, under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The substantial questions of law admitted for consideration were whether the Tribunal can overlook tangible evidence of clandestine removal and under-valuation of goods, which have quasi-criminal implications, and whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing appeals without considering precedents regarding the burden of proof on the Revenue. The Court noted that section 35G excludes High Court jurisdiction on issues related to valuation of goods for assessment, with appeals on such matters directed to the Supreme Court. Despite the appellant's argument that the appeal encompassed issues beyond valuation, the Court held that the Tribunal's order must be challenged as a whole before one forum. Therefore, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and directed the appellant to file appropriate proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Court acknowledged the appeal's prolonged pendency but emphasized adherence to statutory provisions, leading to the disposal of the appeal by returning the Memorandum of Appeal to the appellant for further action before the Supreme Court.