TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. 3. In order to satisfy ourselves, we raised a question to Shri Laxmi Kumaran appearing for the appellant as to whether this Central Excise Appeal against the order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 4-7-2011 [2001 (271) E.L.T. 519 (Tribunal)], is maintainable in the High Court. 4. Shri Laxmi Kumaran submits that under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 an appeal lies to the High Court against any orders passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after 1st July, 2003, not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. He submits that the appeal in the prese....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and placed before Special Benches for decision because they, more often than not, are of importance not only to the importers who are parties thereto but also to many other importers who import or propose to import the same or similar goods. Since the decisions of CEGAT in such matters would have wide application they are, by the terms of the statute, to be rendered by Special Benches. The phrase "relation to" is, ordinarily, of wide import but, in the context of its use in the said expression in Section 129C, it must be read as meaning a direct and proximate relationship to the rate of duty and to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. 11.  It will be seen that sub-section (5) uses the said expression 'determination of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue of goods for purposes of assessment. The statutory definition of the said expression indicates that it has to be read to limit its application to cases where, for the purposes of assessment, questions arise directly and proximately as to the rate of duty or the value of the goods. 13. The order of the Additional Collector under appeal before CEGAT in the present case did not have any direct or proximate relation, for the purposes of assessment, either to the rate of duty applicable to the said goods or to the value thereof. All that the Additional Collector's order did was to confiscate the .said goods allowing to the appellant the option of redeeming them upon payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. That the appellant might avail of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue of goods is maintainable before the Apex Court, cannot be a ground to hold that the appeal against the order of pre-deposit would also be maintainable before the Apex Court." 6. Prima facie on the basis of these decisions, we are satisfied that an appeal, in which the rate of duty of excise or the value of goods for the purposes of assessment is not involved, can be heard under Section 35-C by the High Court. 7. On merits of the case it is submitted that the excise duty was levied on jute carpets manufactured by five companies. The Tribunal held in four cases that the duty is not leviable as jute is pre-dominant by weight in the carpets manufactured by them. In Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhubaneswar-1 v. Champdany Industrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interpretation of Rule 3, and held that the appellant does not have a strong prima facie case for consideration of the application for waiver. After going through the judgment of the Supreme Court and facts obtained in the case we are unable to find any distinction, whatsoever. We are also of the prima facie opinion that the Tribunal committed breach of the judicial discipline in distinguishing the Supreme Court judgments, applicable to the facts of the case by giving its own reasons. It has not only differed on reasons given on same facts, but has also ventured to distinguish the reasons given on the question of law. 9. In the facts and circumstances, we stay the effect and operation of The order dated 4-7-2011 passed by the Custom....