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 Tribunal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court noted that issues related to the valuation of goods for assessment fall under the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Despite arguments regarding other substantive questions of law, the Court directed the appellant to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate proceedings, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions. The appeal was disposed of by returning the Memorandum of Appeal to the appellant for further action before the Supreme Court.

---

---

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.

---