Dismissed

Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana v. Golden Enterprises

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Feb 2018CUSAP/6/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal as not maintainable before the High Court. Relying on the ratio in *Principal Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Raja Dyeing*, the Court held that if an order by the Appellate Tribunal relates to valuation or classification questions, the appeal lies only to the Supreme Court under Section 35L, even if the appeal also seeks to challenge other non-valuation i

What the court decided

AI extract

Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana Vs Golden… — Company and Corporate | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

CUSAP No. 6 of 2017 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 22. 02. 2018

¶3

Commi ssi oner of Cust oms, Ludhi ana

¶4

…. . Appel l ant

¶5

ver sus

¶6

Gol den Ent er pr i ses

¶7

CORAM: - HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE S. J. VAZI FDAR, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE AVNEESH JHI NGAN

¶8

Pr esent : Mr . Sour abh Goel , Sr . St andi ng Counsel , UOI , f or t he appel l ant Mr . Jagmohan Bansal , Advocat e f or t he r espondent

¶9

S. J. VAZI FDAR, CHI EF JUSTI CE ( Or al ) :

¶10

Thi s i s an appeal agai nst t he or der s of t he Cust oms Exci se and Ser vi ce Tax Appel l at e Tr i bunal dat ed 12. 07. 2016 and 18. 04. 2017.

¶11

By t he or der dat ed 12. 07. 2016, t he Tr i bunal , i nt er - al i a , i n expr ess t er ms, deci ded t he val uat i on of t he i mpor t ed goods. The di sput e bet ween t he par t i es i s whet her t he goods t hat wer e i mpor t ed wer e ‘ pr essed di st i l l at e oi l ’ , as cont ended by t he r espondent / assessee, or whet her t hey wer e ‘ base oi l ’ , as cont ended by t he appel l ant . The Tr i bunal , i n par agr aph 11 st at ed: “ Next we t ur n t o t he val uat i on of t he i mpor t ed goods. ” The Tr i bunal hel d t hat t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o est abl i sh mi s- decl ar at i on and consequent l y t he det er mi nat i on of t he val ue on t he basi s of t he pr i ce of base oi l was er r oneous. The Tr i bunal obser ved t hat consequent l y t her e was no basi s t o di sr egar d t he decl ar ed val ue. I n

¶12

Parkash Chand 2018.03.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

CUSAP- 6- 2017

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

par agr aph 12, t he Tr i bunal expr essl y st at ed t hat t her e was no val i d r eason t o r ej ect t he cl assi f i cat i on or val uat i on of i mpor t ed goods.

¶16

The appel l ant had chal l enged t hat or der by f i l i ng CUSAP No. 2 of 2017 ( O&M) whi ch was di sposed of by t he f ol l owi ng or der and j udgment of t he Di vi si on Bench, t o whi ch one of us ( S. J. Vazi f dar , C. J. ) was a par t y, on 09. 02. 2017: -

¶17

“ Mr . Jagmohan Bansal , l ear ned counsel appear ed on behal f of t he r espondent st at i ng t hat he i s i nst r uct ed by Mr . Pawan Kumar Sur i .

¶18

Wi t h t he consent of t he par t i es, t he mat t er i s r emanded t o t he Tr i bunal onl y f or t he pur pose of deci di ng t he i ssues r el at i ng t o t he f i ndi ngs i n par agr aph 4. 2 ( i i i ) ( i v) ( v) ( a) and par agr aph 4. 5 of t he or der dat ed 22. 02. 2016 of t he adj udi cat i ng aut hor i t y and t he par agr aphs r el at i ng t her et o. I n vi ew of t he f act t hat t he goods have been i n t he cust ody of t he appel l ant f or about f our year s, we woul d r equest t he Tr i bunal t o deci de t hi s i ssue pr ef er abl y by 31. 03. 2017.

¶19

The par t i es shal l i n t he f i r st i nst ance appear bef or e t he Tr i bunal on 13. 02. 2017 and t her eaf t er as di r ect ed by t he Tr i bunal . We expr ess no vi ews or opi ni on i n r espect of t he or der dat ed 22. 02. 2016 i n so f ar as i t r el at es t o val uat i on and cl assi f i cat i on.

¶20

The appeal i s accor di ngl y di sposed of . ”

¶21

We have set out t he or der onl y because i t was r el i ed upon by t he par t i es. I t does not det er mi ne any quest i on of l aw as t he or der i t sel f st at es t hat i t was passed wi t h t he consent of t he par t i es. Upon r emand, t he ot her i mpugned or der dat ed 18. 04. 2017 was passed. The or der di r ect ed t he r evenue t o r el ease t he goods i mmedi at el y t o t he appel l ant . The or der , i nt er - al i a , t ook i nt o consi der at i on t he f i r st i mpugned or der , namel y, t he or der dat ed 12. 07. 2016 i n whi ch t he i ssue of al l eged mi s- decl ar at i on was deci ded i n f avour of t he r espondent .

¶22

The above f act s suppor t t he pr el i mi nar y obj ect i on r ai sed by Mr . Jagmohan Bansal , t he l ear ned counsel appear i ng on

¶23

Parkash Chand 2018.03.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CUSAP- 6- 2017

¶25

- 3 -

¶26

behal f of t he r espondent , t hat t he appeal i s not mai nt ai nabl e bef or e t hi s Cour t and i s mai nt ai nabl e onl y bef or e t he Supr eme Cour t . We wi l l assume t hat t her e ar e i ssues ot her t han t hose of val uat i on and cl assi f i cat i on i nvol ved. That woul d make no di f f er ence t o t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y of t he appeal as t he same al so i nvol ves t he i ssues of val uat i on and cl assi f i cat i on and, i n any event , t he i ssue of cl assi f i cat i on. We have al r eady r ef er r ed t o t he or der s i n t hi s r egar d.

¶27

I n Pr i nci pal Commi ssi oner of Cent r al Exci se and Ser vi ce Tax vs. M/ s Raj a Dyei ng, Ludhi ana , CEA No. 18 of 2016, a Di vi si on Bench of t hi s Cour t , t o whi ch one of us ( S. J. Vazi f dar , C. J. ) was a par t y, by an or der and j udgment dat ed 14. 03. 2017 deal t wi t h a si mi l ar obj ect i on wi t h r espect t o an appeal under sect i on 35G of t he Cent r al Exci se Act . Sect i on 35G( 1) r eads as f ol l ows: -

¶28

“ 35G. Appeal t o Hi gh Cour t - ( 1) An appeal shal l l i e t o t he Hi gh Cour t f r om ever y or der passed i n appeal by t he Appel l at e Tr i bunal on or af t er t he 1st day of Jul y, 2003 ( not bei ng an or der r el at i ng, among ot her t hi ngs, t o t he det er mi nat i on of any quest i on havi ng a r el at i on t o t he r at e of dut y of exci se or t o t he val ue of goods f or t he pur poses of assessment ) , i f t he Hi gh Cour t i s sat i sf i ed t hat t he case i nvol ves a subst ant i al quest i on of l aw. ”

¶29

The Di vi si on Bench hel d t hat so l ong as t he quest i on of val uat i on or cl assi f i cat i on ar i ses t he appeal woul d not be mai nt ai nabl e bef or e t he Hi gh Cour t even i f ot her i ssues ar e r ai sed i n vi ew of sect i on 35G( 1) of t he Cent r al Exci se Act . The Di vi si on Bench hel d: -

¶30

“ 11. The wor ds “ among ot her t hi ngs” i n Sect i on 35 G ar e of si ngul ar i mpor t ance i n det er mi ni ng t he ambi t of Sect i on 35 G. These wor ds i ndi cat e t hat an appeal i s mai nt ai nabl e under Sect i on 35 G t o t he Hi gh Cour t onl y i f t he or der passed i n appeal by t he Tr i bunal i s not one r el at i ng t o t he det er mi nat i on of any quest i on havi ng a r el at i on t o t he r at e of dut y of exci se or t o t he val ue of goods f or t he pur poses of assessment , an appeal agai nst t hat or der woul d l i e onl y t o t he Supr eme Cour t under Sect i on 35 L and not t o t he Hi gh Cour t under Sect i on 35

¶31

Parkash Chand 2018.03.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

CUSAP- 6- 2017

¶33

- 4 -

¶34

G. Thi s woul d be so even i f t he appeal i s onl y i n r espect of quest i ons ot her t han t he r at e of dut y or t he val ue of t he goods f or t he pur pose of assessment . I t i s t he nat ur e of t he or der of t he Tr i bunal and not t he scope of t he appeal t hat det er mi nes t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y of t he appeal under Sect i on 35 G.

¶35

I t i s not necessar y t o l ook f ar f or t he r eason f or t hi s pr ovi si on. The i nt ent i on i s t o consol i dat e al l - appeal s f r om t he or der of t he Tr i bunal i n one Cour t ei t her i n t he Hi gh Cour t or i n t he Supr eme Cour t . A cont r ar y vi ew woul d r esul t i n mul t i pl e appeal s bei ng f i l ed bef or e bot h t he Cour t s wher e t he or der of t he Tr i bunal r el at es t o t he det er mi nat i on of quest i ons havi ng a r el at i on t o t he r at e of dut y of exci se or val ue of goods as wel l as t o ot her quest i ons. I n such cases t he par t y whi ch desi r es chal l engi ng t he or der of t he Tr i bunal r el at i ng t o bot h t ypes of quest i ons woul d have t o f i l e one appeal i n t he Hi gh Cour t and anot her i n t he Supr eme Cour t . The par t y whi ch desi r es chal l engi ng one t ype of i ssue woul d have t o f i l e an appeal bef or e t he Supr eme Cour t and t he ot her par t y t hat i nt ends chal l engi ng t he ot her t ype of i ssue woul d have t o f i l e an appeal bef or e t he Hi gh Cour t . Ther e coul d pot ent i al l y be f our appeal s agai nst t he same or der of t he Tr i bunal - t wo i n t he Hi gh Cour t and t wo i n t he Supr eme Cour t . I t was pr eci sel y t o avoi d t hese si t uat i ons t hat Sect i on 32 G was enact ed. I t was t o avoi d t he bi f ur cat i on of pr oceedi ngs bef or e t he Supr eme Cour t and t he Hi gh Cour t .

¶36

Thi s woul d al so avoi d conf l i ct i ng f i ndi ngs. A vi ew t o t he cont r ar y woul d l ead t o t he possi bi l i t y of an appeal agai nst t he or der of t he Tr i bunal bei ng mai nt ai nabl e i n cer t ai n r espect s bef or e t he Hi gh Cour t and i n ot her r espect s bef or e t he Supr eme Cour t . Thi s coul d l ead t o consi der abl e conf usi on and compl i cat i on. For i nst ance, i t may wel l be necessar y i n a gi ven case f or t he Supr eme Cour t t o r ef er t o, anal yse and adj udi cat e upon t he f act s i n r el at i on t o an or der r el at i ng t o t he det er mi nat i on of any quest i on havi ng a r el at i on t o t he r at e of dut y of exci se or t o t he val ue of goods f or t he pur poses of assessment . I t may equal l y be necessar y f or t he Hi gh Cour t i n an appeal agai nst t he same or der t o consi der , anal yse and adj udi cat e upon t he same f act s but i n r el at i on t o t he ot her quest i ons. Al t hough t heor et i cal l y, i t woul d be possi bl e t o br i ng t he mat t er t o a concl usi on wi t h consi st ent f i ndi ngs t he pr ocess woul d be consi der abl y cumber some and i n many cases i mpr act i cal . For i nst ance, i n a gi ven case, a par t y may not chal l enge t he or der of t he Hi gh Cour t . Agai nst t he same or der i n t he appeal bef or e t he Supr eme Cour t , i t woul d be possi bl e t o come t o di f f er ent concl usi ons on t he f act s. The par t y, agai nst whom t he f act s have been det er mi ned, woul d be f aced wi t h t he f i ndi ngs of f act by t he Hi gh Cour t . Bot h t he j udgment s woul d have at t ai ned

¶37

Parkash Chand 2018.03.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CUSAP- 6- 2017

¶39

- 5 -

¶40

f i nal i t y but wi t h i nconsi st ent f i ndi ngs. Thi s coul d not have been t he i nt ent i on of t he Legi sl at ur e.

¶41

Whet her an appeal l i es t o t he Hi gh Cour t under Sect i on 35 G or t o t he Supr eme Cour t under Sect i on 35 L cannot possi bl y depend upon t he nat ur e or scope of t he appeal t hat t he par t y i nt ends f i l i ng. A par t y may seek t o chal l enge onl y t hat par t of t he or der of t he Tr i bunal whi ch r el at es t o quest i ons ot her t han t hose r el at i ng t o t he r at e of dut y of exci se or t he val ue of t he goods f or t he pur poses of assessment . Such an appeal woul d, absent any ot her quest i ons, l i e t o t he Hi gh Cour t . Once i t i s hel d t hat an appeal agai nst t he or der of t he Tr i bunal whi ch deal s wi t h quest i ons t hat f al l wi t hi n t he ambi t of Sect i on 35 L as wel l as ot her quest i ons l i es t o t he Supr eme Cour t under Sect i on 35 L t he mer e f act t hat t he par t y chooses t o chal l enge onl y t hat par t of t he or der t hat f al l s wi t hi n t he ambi t of Sect i on 32 G woul d make no di f f er ence. I n ot her wor ds, i t cannot be sai d t hat t he par t y t hat chooses t o chal l enge t he or der of t he Tr i bunal onl y so f ar as i t r el at es t o t he det er mi nat i on of quest i ons f al l i ng wi t hi n t he ambi t of 35 G must f i l e t he appeal bef or e t he Hi gh Cour t even t hough t he or der al so deal s wi t h quest i ons t hat f al l wi t hi n t he ambi t of Sect i on 32 L. I n t hat event , i f t he ot her par t y f i l es an appeal agai nst t he or der of t he Tr i bunal on i ssues t hat f al l wi t hi n t he ambi t of Sect i on 32 L i n t he Supr eme Cour t , t he ver y pur pose of Sect i on 32 G of br i ngi ng t he appeal s ei t her bef or e t he Supr eme Cour t or bef or e t he Hi gh Cour t woul d be def eat ed. I t can har dl y be suggest ed t hat i n t hat case, t he appeal f i l ed under Sect i on 32 G bef or e t he Hi gh Cour t ought t o st and t r ansf er r ed t o t he Supr eme Cour t . The scheme of t he Act i n gener al and Sect i ons 32 G and 32 L i n par t i cul ar do not i ndi cat e such a mechani sm. ”

¶42

Sect i on 130( 1) of t he Cust oms Act , 1962, wi t h whi ch we

¶43

ar e concer ned, r eads as under : -

¶44

“ SECTI ON 130 . Appeal t o Hi gh Cour t . - ( 1) An appeal shal l l i e t o t he Hi gh Cour t f r om ever y or der passed i n appeal by t he Appel l at e Tr i bunal on or af t er t he 1st day of Jul y, 2003 ( not bei ng an or der r el at i ng, among ot her t hi ngs, t o t he det er mi nat i on of any quest i on havi ng a r el at i on t o t he r at e of dut y of cust oms or t o t he val ue of goods f or t he pur poses of assessment ) , i f t he Hi gh Cour t i s sat i sf i ed t hat t he case i nvol ves a subst ant i al quest i on of l aw. ”

¶45

The pr ovi si ons of sect i on 35G( 1) of t he Cent r al Exci se Act ar e i n par i mat er i a t o sect i on 130( 1) of t he Cust oms Act , 1962. The j udgment , t her ef or e, appl i es t o t he pr esent case as wel l .

¶46

Parkash Chand 2018.03.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

CUSAP- 6- 2017

¶48

- 6 -

¶49

I n t he ci r cumst ances, t he appeal i s di smi ssed onl y on t he gr ound t hat i t i s not mai nt ai nabl e.

¶50

( S. J. VAZI FDAR) CHI EF JUSTI CE

¶51

( AVNEESH JHI NGAN) JUDGE

¶52

1. 2018 Par kash

¶53

NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES

¶54

Parkash Chand 2018.03.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana v. Golden Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana v. Golden Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Gurgaon Vs M/S Towers Watson India Pvt. Ltd.

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -2 Chandigarh Vs Sh. Hardev Singh Arshi # 1108 SEC-33C Chd

Shri Guru Arjan Dev Ji Truck Operator Union Vs State of Punjab and Others

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs M/S Comverse Network Systems India Pvt. Ltd.

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -2 Chandigarh Vs M/S Mobisoft Telesolutions Pvt. Ltd. Plot NO.2,IT Park SEC-22 Panchkula

Pr Commissioner of Income TAX-2 Chd Vs M/S Mobisoft Tele Solutions P Ltd.