2010 (6) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : C.N. Ramachandran, J.]. - These are Appeals filed by the department against the orders of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal cancelling adjudication orders demanding duty and penalty for the inputs manufactured and cleared by the related respondent-industries to contract units for manufacture of hawai chappals. Standing counsel ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n. It is against the common order of the Tribunal, these appeals are filed. 2. During hearing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that appeals are not maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act because along with duty exemption another question arising is in relation to classification and rate of duty on inputs. Even though counsel for the appellant pointed out that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at Tribunal has not considered exemption claim based on condition in the notifications, that is whether manufacture of final product through contract units entitles assessees for exemption under the notifications, still we are constrained to reject the appeals as not maintainable in the High Court because classification is one of the issues decided by the Tribunal. Consequently we hold that appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X