The High Court was told to dismiss an appeal filed under the monetary limit instruction as the stake was too low and the classification dispute nature made it non-maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The appeals were dismissed.
Appeals dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938
C.E.Appeal.No. 19 of 2010 ( )
AGAINST THE FINAL ORDER NO.1115/09 DTD.18.8.2009 IN APPEAL NO.ST/493/2008 of CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL,SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, SERVICE TAX & CUSTOMS,I.C.E.BHAVAN,PRESS CLUB ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX
RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT:
M/S.MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED PUNNEN ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.
R,R BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL R,R BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL R,R BY ADV. SRI.K.S.VENKITAGIRI R,R BY ADV. SRI.V.PANCHANATHAN
THIS CENTRAL EXICISE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2016, ALONG WITH CEA. 24/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN CEA.19/10
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
----------------------------------C.E.A.Nos.19 & 24 of 2010 ----------------------------------Dated this the 16th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
CEA.19/10 & 24/10
2
excluded from the purview of the instruction and that therefore, the instruction has no relevance.
`15 lakhs was prescribed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs for maintaining an appeal before this Court. Admittedly, the stake involved in these cases are much less. In so far as the contention of the learned standing counsel that cases involving classification disputes are excluded from the instruction is concerned, according to us, if it is the case of the department that the dispute involved in these appeals is a classification dispute, since the dispute is having a relation to the rate of duty of excise, such a dispute cannot be the subject matter of an appeal filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before this Court. For that reason also, the appeals cannot be entertained.
Appeals are dismissed.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge.
kkb.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appeals challenging the Tribunal's orders on service tax are maintainable under the monetary limit instruction.
Whether disputes involving classification and duty rates are subject to appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, SERVICE TAX & CUSTOMS, IC.E.BHAVAN, PRESS CLUB ROAD,
M/S. MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
