2025 (5) TMI 936 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Rejection of the applications filed by the appellant (M/s. Zydus Healthcare Limited) for special rate fixation on the ground that they have foregone such option is legally not tenable - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of section 35G (1) of the Central Excise Act 1944 clearly reveals that no appeal shall lie before the High Court from any order passed by the learned Tribunal (on or after the 1st day of July 2003) if it is an order which relates 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. Since the matter relates to valuation this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or try or determine the issue as sought to be raised by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise Siliguri. Liberty granted to the appellant to approach the Hon ble Supreme Court of India for redressal of their grievances if any in accordance with law.

Summary

The Sikkim High Court, per Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder, dismissed the statutory appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Siliguri, against the CESTAT Kolkata's order in Excise Appeal No.75702 of 2022. The CESTAT had held that rejecting M/s. Zydus Healthcare Limited's applications for special rate fixation on the ground of having foregone the option was "legally not tenable" and remanded the matter for fresh decision on merits.The Court referred to Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which bars appeals to the High Court from Tribunal orders relating 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." Since the present case concerned valuation, the High Court held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, with liberty granted to the appellant to approach the Supreme Court for redressal. The Court emphasized that "no appeal shall lie before the High Court" in such valuation matters under Section 35G(1).