TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-2017 - P. K. Jaiswal And Ved Prakash Sharma, JJ. Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant Shri Yogendra Aldak, learned counsel with Shri Rounak Chouksey, learned counsel for the respondent ORDER By order dated 07.12.2017 passed in Central Excise Appeal No.44/2017 (Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore v. AVTEC Limited, Pithampur) we decided the appeal filed by the department by passing following order: - This appeal under Section 35-G (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been filed by the appellant Department against order dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by which penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Supreme Court. 4. Relevant paragraphs No.11 and 12 of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Navin Chemicals Manufacturing and Trading Company Limited v. Collector of Customs (supra) read, as under: - 11. It will be seen that Sub-section 5 uses the said expression 'determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment' and the Explanation thereto provides a definition of it 'for the purposes of this subsection'. The Explanation says that the expression includes the determination of a question relating to the rate of duty; to the valuation of goods for purposes of assessment; to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er or not a reference by CEGAT lies to the High Court and whether or not an appeal lies directly to the Supreme Court from a decision of CEGAT : does the question that requires determination have a direct and proximate relation, for the purposes of assessment, to the rate of duty applicable to the goods or to the value of the goods. 5. Relevant paragraph No.9 of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax v. Ernst Young Private Limited (supra) reads, as under: - 9. Before we examine other judgments, it is important to examine the language of Section 35G in the bracketed portion which relates to matters in which appeal is to be filed before the Supreme Court. Section 35L of the F. Act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal, on the other hand, it speaks about the nature of the order passed by the Tribunal. If the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned before the High Court relates to the determination of value of the taxable service, then an appeal from such an order would not lie to the High Court. 4. However, we feel that although those decisions do support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, the approach that we have taken is a more direct. We reiterate, it is not the content of the appeal that is determinative of whether the appeal would be maintainable before the High Court or not but rather the nature of the order which is impugned in the appeal which determines the issue. 6. In view of the aforesaid, we dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
