The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed three connected custom appeals as not maintainable, holding that they involve value determination for assessment, which bars High Court jurisdiction under Sections 130 and 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962.
The appeals are 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Custom Appeal No. 98/2018
M/s Sun Gems, 4086, Jagnnath Shah Ka Rasta, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur Proprietor Sunil Batwara S/o Sh. Kailash Chand Batwara
----Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Cce. And S.t. Jaipur-I, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Custom Appeal No. 99/2018
Sunil Batwara S/o Sh. Kailash Chand Batwara, Partner, M/s Suhani Gems, 4086 Jagnnath Shah Ka Rasta, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Cce And St Jaipur-I, Ncr Building Statue Circle, Jaipur Raj
----Respondent
D.B. Custom Appeal No. 100/2018
M/s Suhani Gems 4086, Jagnnath Shah Ka Rasta, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur Through Partner Sh. Sunil Batwara S/o Sh. Kailash Chand Batwara.
----Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Cce And St Jaipur-I, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur Raj
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Ghiya through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka through VC
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
(2 of 2)
[CUSTA-98/2018]
18/01/2022
These appeals arise out of a common background and involve the same assessee. The appeals concern a common order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11.09.2017. On perusal of the said order of the Tribunal would immediately show that the question involved in all these appeals is of value of the goods for purpose of assessment. In fact learned counsel for the appellant had at the outset argued before us that the Tribunal has committed an error in accepting the valuation as suggested by the Department based only on the so called admission by one of the partners of the appellant firm.
As per sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, an appeal lies to the High Court on substantial question of law from every order passed by the Appellate Tribunal except an order relating among other things to the determination of any question having relation to rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment. As per clause (b) of Section 130-E of the Act, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal which relates among other things to the determination of any question having relation to rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment.
In terms of Sections 130 and 130-E of the Act, thus these appeals are not maintainable to the High Court. The same are dismissed as not maintainable.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
(AKIL KURESHI),CJ
Kamlesh Kumar/9-11
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Sun Gems
M/s Suhani Gems
Commissioner, Cce. And S.t. Jaipur-I
Akil Kureshi
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
