TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 942
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufactured products, in terms of the Area Based Exemption granted under Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08/07/1999, as amended by Notification No. 17/2008-CE dated 27/03/2008 and Notification No. 31/2008-CE dated 10/06/2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Exemption Notifications) . 5. The respondent, in both cases is M/S. S.C. Johnson Products Private Limited, a manufacturer of 'Mosquito Repellents' and 'Cleaning Preparations' having Unit-IV and Unit-VI in Dag No. 13KA, Bamunimaidam Industrial Area, Guwahati, Assam. 6. The appellant's contention revolves around the issue of fixation of the special value addition rate for the financial year 2010-2011, inasmuch as, the learned CESTAT, vide the above impugned order, had held that the methodology for arriving at the sale value from the audited Financial Statements of the respondent company, by apportioning the same to the respective Units on the basis of stock transfer ratio had been correctly done and the special rate of value addition had been fixed as per the Exemption Notifications. 7. The learned CESTAT, Kolkata thereafter set aside the original orders of the Commissioner dated 20.06.2013 in relation to Unit-IV and Uni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., on account of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as "the CEA 1944"), as the issue pertains to a question having a relation to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment. He thus submits that the issue raised in the present appeals will have to be agitated/lie directly to the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the CEA, 1944, as the issue pertains to the quantum of exemption available to the respondent company under the Exemption Notifications. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the proposed Substantial Question of Law Nos. 1 & 3, have a relation to the issue of the quantum of exemption available to the respondent company under the Exemption Notifications and as such, Section 35G and 35L of the CEA, 1944 would apply. With respect to the Substantial Question of Law No. 2, he submits that when the appellant has not annexed a copy of the said order or produced the same in the Court today, he has got no comments to make on the same. However, there does not appear to be any infirmity with the Hon'ble CESTAT following a covered matter, as it is bound by judicial discipline to follow a decision of a Coordinat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide the question of law so formulated and deliver such judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded and may award such cost as it deems fit. (6) The High Court may determine any issue which - (a) has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal; or (b) has been wrongly determined by the Appellate Tribunal, by reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in sub-section (1). (7) When an appeal has been filed before the High Court, it shall be heard by a bench of not less than two Judges of the High Court, and shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of such Judges or of the majority, if any, of such Judges. (8) Where there is no such majority, the Judges shall state the point of law upon which they differ and the case shall, then, be heard upon that point only by one or more of the other Judges of the High Court and such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Judges who have heard the case including those who first heard it. (9) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), relating to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner had accordingly concluded that the conditions necessary for fixation of a special rate of value addition had not been fulfilled. The same had been put to challenge before the Hon'ble CESTAT. The learned CESTAT had however opined otherwise in respect of the claim for special rate of value addition by the respondents. 17. The stand of the appellants is that the learned CESTAT had erred in allowing the appeals, despite the lack of actual unit wise sale data, which was essential for calculating the true value addition and determining eligibility under the Exemption Notifications. On a consideration of the issues that have been raised before the Commissioner and the learned CESTAT, we find that the issue pertains to the exemptions pertaining to the rate of value addition, in terms of the Exemption Notifications. As such, we are of the view that the impugned order being a determination of a question having relation to the rate of value of goods for the purpose of assessment, the present appeals are not maintainable before this Court, in terms of Section 35G and 35L of the CEA, 1944. 18. In the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-I vs. Motorola India Limited, report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment, in view of Section 35G(1) of the CEA, 1944. 20. In the case of Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Jammu vs. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited, reported in 2019 (12) TMI 229, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court was ceased of an issue involving interpretation of the Exemption Notifications which would have an effect or valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of duty. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court thereafter held that the issue involving interpretation of the Exemption Notifications which would have an effect or valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of duty would not be maintainable in the High Court in view of Section 35G of the CEA, 1944, as the question of exemption was directly or proximately related to the rate of duty for the purpose of assessment of excise duty payable by the assessee. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Navin Chemicals MFG and Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs [1993 (68) ELT 3(SC)] and decision of the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & ST vs. Tirupati LPG Industries ....