2017 (12) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....does not have jurisdiction to entertain these appeals, and notwithstanding the fact that the appeals have been admitted, jurisdiction cannot vest in this Court when such jurisdiction is not specifically prescribed by the Statute. 3. Prayer clauses (B) and (C) set out in both the appeals read as under :   FIRST APPEAL NO.2860/2008 (B) The order dated 4.12.2007, passed by learned CESTAT, Mumbai bearing No.A/900/WZB/C-II/EB may kindly be set aside.   (C) That, the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad Division-II vide Order-in-Original No.434/DMD/97, dated 31.10.1997 may kindly be confirmed by upholding the demand of Rs. 17,37,276=82 ps. and also to impose penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Rule 173-Q.   FIRST APPEAL NO.3869/2008   (B) The order dated 4.3.2008, passed by learned CESTAT, Mumbai bearing No.A/317/08/C-I/EB may kindly be set aside. (C) That, the order passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad Division-II vide Order-in-Original No.164/1999, dated 29.7.1999 may kindly be confirmed by upholding the demand of Rs. 6,52,354/- and also to impose penalty of Rs. 50,0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 31.10.1997 reads as under :   FIRST APPEAL NO.2860/2008 I) I confirm the demand of Rs. 17,37,276=82 as mentioned in the above Show Cause Notices after denying noticee the exemption notifications as mentioned in Show Cause Notices dated 31.10.1994. II) I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for availing the inadmissible benefit of exemption notifications.   FIRST APPEAL NO.3869/2008   I hereby confirm duty liability of Rs. 6,52,354/- and order recovery of the same under Section 11A of C.Ex. Act, 1944.   I also impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of C.Ex. Rules, 1944.   I also order to recover the interest on the said amount under Section 11AA of CEA, 1944.   (j) In the appeal preferred by the respondent before the Commissioner of Appeals, Central Excise, Mumbai, by order dated 27.12.2000/ 29.11.2002, the appeal of the respondent was allowed. (k) In the appeal before CESTAT, filed by the appellant - Department, the Tribunal has rejected the said appeal, by judgment dated 4.12.2007 and 4.3.2008.   6. We are, therefore, required to consider the effect and the impact of the impug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of excise or to the value of the goods, for purpose of assessment, would not be maintainable before this Court.   10. Learned counsel for the appellant specifically submits that, the case before this Court is as regards whether exemption granted to the respondent under a misrepresentation, has led to payment of lesser taxes. It is further contended by the appellant that, if this Court holds that the respondent has acquired exemption by misrepresentation, by terming the product as being one which should be used exclusively for the purposes of surgery and medical procedures, the appellant would succeed in recovering higher taxes with penalty from the respondent. 11. In the backdrop of these submissions, we find that, a decision on the merits of these appeals, if is to be delivered by us, would lead to the determination of a question in relation to the rate of duty of excise as against the respondent. As such, if the appellant succeeds, the Department would succeed in raising the taxes on the product at issue and would, therefore, recover more taxes at a higher rate of duty of excise on the product, which was granted exemption by the Department. 12. We have considered the orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reto, but also to the manufacturers of those products throughout the country. In a country governed by Parliamentary legislation because of the territorial bifurcation in forming states and because of the divergent opinion which is possible, the excise duty payable would vary from place to place. In order to bring uniformity in the levy of excise duty throughout the country and consequently to see that the country's finance is not affected, the Parliament has vested the jurisdiction to decide the disputes with the Apex Court. Therefore, we see a duty policy underlining this bifurcation of the jurisdiction between the Apex Court and the High Courts. All other matters other than what is set out above, which relates to the individual manufacturers and all disputes based on assessment orders which have attained finality, such as the benefits to which they are entitled to, refunds, duty drawbacks, rebates, etc., which relate to a particular manufacturer falls within the jurisdiction of the High Courts."   59. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that since the question raised in the appeal relates to eligibility of the goods manufactured by the assessee for....