TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of brevity) whereby the orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT" for the sake of brevity) on 21.10.2005 in Appeal Nos.E/2691 to 2693/03 & E/1976/04 Mum, are impugned. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents to the maintainability of the appeal under the provisions of Section 35(G)(1) of the Act of 1944 before the High Court on the ground that the appeal would lie before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of the provisions of Section 35(L)(b) of the Act of 1944. According to the respondents, the order passed by the CESTAT and impugned in the present appeal relates, among other things, to the determination of a question having a relation to the rate of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the Central Excise Audit team in mid September 2001 that the dispatches made by respondent no.1 to TISCO were not permitted under the Domestic Tariff Area sale as the same amounted to job work/sub contracting. The Department, therefore, issued a Show Cause Notice dated 09.10.2001 to the respondent no.1 asking it to show cause as to why the clearances made during September-2000 should not be charged to full Central Excise Duty as per the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act of 1944 by denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No.8/1997 dated 01.03.1997. Thereafter, notices demanding duty on the aforesaid basis were issued to the respondent no.1. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur, by an order dated 24.06.2003 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TAT or whether it is payable in accordance with the provisions of Proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act of 1944. According to the counsel for the respondent no.1, there is also a dispute regarding the value on which the duty is paid. The counsel for the respondent no.1 took this Court to the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant, in this appeal, to point out that the main issue which is sought to be agitated by the appellant in this case relates to the applicability or otherwise of the Notification No.8/1997 and the Proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act of 1944. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 that it is the case of the appellant that the benefit of Notification No.8/1997 would not be applicable to the goods cleared b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal would lie to the High Court except an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. Section 35(L)(b) provided that an appeal against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment would lie to the Supreme Court. It is, thus, amply clear from the aforesaid proviso that an appeal against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsus Collector, this Court held in the case of Union of India Versus Auto Ignation Ltd. that the question whether or not the assessee is well within the exemption Notification was a question directly involved in the dispute which relate directly and proximately to the rate of duty of Excise for the purpose of assessment. This Court, therefore, further held in the aforesaid case that the issue involved in the case of Union of India Versus Auto Ignation Ltd. could be conveniently gone into in the appeal under Section 35(L) of the Act of 1944. 8. We duly follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading C. Ltd. Versus Collector as also the judgments rendered by this Court in case of Sterlite Opti....