The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Department challenging a CESTAT decision regarding duty on ship stores. The Court held that under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, appeals do not lie to the High Court concerning questions on the rate of tax.
The appeal was dismissed as it was 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 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/3RD PHALGUNA, 1937
C.E.Appeal.No. 44 of 2005 ( )
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN APPEAL.NO E/160 - 162/2003 PASSED BY THE CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE DATED 16-03-2005
APPELLANT(S)
THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CALICUT COMMISSIONERATE, CALICUT.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SRI.ABRAHAM THOMAS, CGC SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS.
RESPONDENT(S):
M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., CALICUT AIRPORT, KARIPUR.
R BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
THIS CENTRAL EXICISE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DG
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
C.E.A.No.44 of 2005
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2016
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
This appeal by the Department is filed challenging the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on the issue as to whether the ship stores consumed on board by a foreign going vessel (aircrafts) is liable for duty. The question, therefore, is as to whether there could be levy of duty. If not, it is a situation of 0% duty. The Tribunal held that an appeal does not lie before it. Whatever that be, having regard to the clear terms of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, when appeal relates to questions as regards the rate of tax, such appeal does not lie to the High Court under Section 35G of that Act. See for support, Rajan Beedi Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (2) KLT 965] and Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and Service
2
C.E.A.No.44/05
Tax v. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. [C.E.A.No.28/11 and connections] . For these reasons, we do
not find our way to entertain this appeal.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
DG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether goods are fit to be removed from Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944
Whether an appeal lies to the High Court against an order of CESTAT on rate of tax under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajan Beedi Company v. Commissioner of Central ExciseReferred¶22
Rajan Beedi Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (2) KLT 965]
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and Service Tax v. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd.Referred¶22
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and Service Tax v. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Calicut Commissionerate, Calicut
M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Calicut Airport, Karipur
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
