Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise vs. M/S Azad Coach PVT. LTD.
Original PDF →Facts
The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Jaipur-I (Appellant) has filed an appeal against an order dated February 28, 2020, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had modified its earlier order of September 27, 2016, and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-quantification of excise duty liability. This re-quantification was to consider an exemption available to M/s Azad Coach Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) as per exemption Notification No.06/2006-CE. The CESTAT also granted liberty to the Respondent to approach the adjudicating authority for this re-quantification. The Appellant contends that the CESTAT erred by remanding the matter instead of quantifying the excise duty as directed by the Apex Court.
Held
The Court held that the present appeal is not maintainable before the High Court. The reasoning is based on Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which stipulates that appeals arising out of orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or the value of goods for the purposes of assessment, are to be heard by the Apex Court. Since the matter pertains to the power of quantification which has a relation to the rate of duty of excise, and the Apex Court had previously directed the CESTAT to quantify the excise duty in accordance with law, any appeal in this regard must be adjudicated by the Apex Court. The Court found no force in the present appeal and accordingly dismissed it as not maintainable. The Appellant was advised to approach the Apex Court. The stay application was disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order of the CESTAT that remands a matter for re-quantification of excise duty liability, considering the provisions of Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Contentions: Petitioner (Appellant): The CESTAT was directed by the Apex Court to quantify the excise duty in accordance with law. Instead of doing so, the CESTAT erred by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority and failed to decide the matter on merits, despite the Apex Court's direction. Respondent: Objections are raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal. Under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, appeals concerning the determination of any question relating to the rate of duty of excise or value of goods for assessment are to be heard by the Apex Court. The matter was initially challenged before the Apex Court, which granted liberty to the Respondent to approach the Tribunal for fixation and quantification of excise duty.
Sections Cited
Section 35L(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 21/03/2024
Appellant has preferred this Central Excise Appeal aggrieved by order dated 28.02.2020 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby learned CESTAT has modified the order of the Tribunal dated 27.09.2016 and has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the excise duty liability considering the exemption now available to the appellant as per exemption Notification No.06/2006-CE. Further, liberty was given to M/s Azad Coach Pvt. Ltd. to approach the concerned adjudicating authority for re-quantification.
It is contended by Mr. Ajay Shukla appearing for the appellant that CESTAT was asked to quantify the excise duty in accordance with law by an order of the Apex Court, instead of quantifying the excise duty, they have erred in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority and they have not decided
[2024:RJ-JP:14375-DB] (2 of 2) [EXCIA-21/2020] the matter on merits inspite of there being a direction by the Apex Court.
Objections to the maintainability of the appeal is raised by counsel for the respondent. It is contended by counsel-Mr. Manish Khurana appearing through video conferencing that under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, any appeal arising out of 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 the purposes of assessment, is to be heard by the Apex Court. It is argued that initially also the order was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order dated 02.12.2019, granted liberty to M/s Azad Coach Pvt. Ltd. to move to the Tribunal for fixation and quantification of the excise duty in accordance with law.
We have considered the contentions.
Since, the matter pertains to power of quantification having relation to the rate of duty of excise and there was direction by the Apex Court to the CESTAT to quantify the excise duty in accordance with law, any appeal in this regard has to be adjudicated by the Apex Court and earlier also the order passed by the CESTAT was challenged before the Apex Court.
Consequently, we do not find any force in the present Central Excise Appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. Stay application stands disposed.
Appellant is free to approach the Apex Court.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J AMIT/41
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.