Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Commr.Of Central Excise,Hyderabad vs M/S Shriram Refrigeration Industries on 8 September, 2022
Bench: M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2589-2599 OF 2011
COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,HYDERABAD Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S SHRIRAM REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. As common question of law arises in this group of appeals and, as such, arise out of the impugned common judgment and order dated 02.05.2008 passed by the High Court, all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common order.
2. The issue involved in the present appeals lies in a very narrow compass.
3. The short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeals against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal were maintainable before the High Court under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act or the appeals would lie to this Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act?
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length.
Signature Not Verified
5. Digitally signed by SNEHA Date: 2022.09.16 By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has 15:17:45 IST Reason:
non-suited the Revenue on the ground that the appeals before the High Court were not maintainable in view of Section 35L of the 2 Central Excise Act and the appeals ought to have been filed/preferred before this Court.
6. It is required to be noted that the question was whether respondents were liable to pay the Central Excise duty or not. The question is/was whether the respondents can be said to be manufacture of stators or not and therefore liable to pay central excise duty or not. The aforesaid dispute cannot be said to be dispute either related to rate of duty and/or valuation. Only in a case where the dispute is with respect to the rate of duty and/or valuation, the appeals will lie to this Court. In any other cases where the dispute is with respect to the liability of the assessee to pay central excise duty the appeal shall be maintainable before the High Court under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act.
7. We are fortified with our view by the decisions of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-1 vs. Motorola India Limited, (2019) 9 SCC 563 and Asean Cableship Pte. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2022 (380) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.)
8. In the case of Motorola India Limited (supra), while considering the pari materia provisions under the Customs Act, namely, Section 130 of the Customs Act, it is observed and held in para 11 as under:
“11. Upon a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it could thus be seen that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The only exception carved out is that an appeal shall lie before this Court and shall not lie before the High Court against the order relating, amongst other things, to the determination of any question having relation to the 3 rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment.”
9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the case on hand and, as observed hereinabove, the dispute has no relation to the rate of duty or the value of the goods and/or the dispute with respect to the valuation, the appeals were maintainable before the High Court under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the High Court has committed a very serious error in not entertaining the appeals and relegating the Revenue to prefer the appeals before this Court. As the High Court has not considered the appeals on merits and/or on any other question, we have no other alternative but to remand the matter to the High Court to decide the appeals in accordance with law and on its own merits.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these appeals succeed in part. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court in not entertaining the appeals and relegating the Revenue to prefer appeals before this Court under Section 35L of the Customs Excise Act is hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court to entertain the appeals under Section 35(G) of the Customs Excise Act and thereafter to consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merits.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the High Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present order.
4All the appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
.......................... J.
(M.R. SHAH) .......................... J.
(KRISHNA MURARI) New Delhi;
September 08, 2022.
5
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 2589-2599/2011
COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE,HYDERABAD Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S SHRIRAM REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES Respondent(s)
Date : 08-09-2022 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Venkatraman, ASG Mr. M.K.Maroria, Adv.
Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv.
Mr. V.C. Bharathi, Adv.
Mr Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv.
Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv.
Ms. Mounica Kasturi, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Mundra, Adv.
Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R All the appeals are partly allowed to the extent as indicated in the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)