TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 753
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was raised by the counsel for the respondent, vide order dated 14.07.2023, time was given to the counsel for the appellant to examine the issue with reference to the decision cited by counsel for the respondent in "M/s Navin Chemicals Mfg. And Trading Co. Limited Vs. Collector of Customs: 1993(4) SCC 320." 3. Heard on the question of maintainability of the present appeal before the High Court. 4. It is contended by counsel appearing for the appellant that the judgment referred to by counsel for the respondent i.e. M/s Navin Chemicals Mfg. And Trading Co. Limited (supra), has no applicability to the present case, as that case was with regard to Section 129C of the Custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CC 177" an appeal was filed by the Commissioner Central Excise before the Apex Court when the benefit of SSI exemption was denied by the Revenue on the ground that respondent had floated two front units in order to fraudulently avail the SSI Exemption. 9. It is argued that appellant at one hand is approaching the Apex Court as there is exception under Section 35G of the Act and on the other hand, appellant is approaching the High Court claiming that the case would not fall under the exception under Section 35G of the Act. 10. Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on "Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.: CEAC No.8 of 2013 and CM Nos. 1975-1976 of 2013. decided on 26.02.2013" & "Commissioner of Customs & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods for purposes of assessment. 15. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. Electro-Mechanical Engineering Corporation & Ors. (supra), appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, when the benefit of SSI Exemption was denied by the Revenue on the ground that respondent had floated two front units in order to fraudulently avail the SSI Exemption. The said appeal was filed before the Apex Court knowing pretty well that appeal is not maintainable before the High Court. In that case, appeal was entertained by the Apex Court. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Customs & C. Ex., Goa (supra) held that a reference under Section 35H of the Act is not maintainable where the issue relates to the determin....