Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Bellary Computers on 18 August, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar
(a) Dispute relating to the duty of excise payable on any goods; V
(b) The value of the goods for the purposes... 1 of assessment: ..
(c) A dispute as to the classification_;"ot"».f=-.. goods; "
(d) Whether those goods are covered«--by"'agvn 1 exemption or not; up " _
(e) Whether the value of goods "f_or_th.eH.'~.__ purposes of assessmentisireiciuiredvto be 1 "
increased or decreased; _ V ' g
(f) The question of' whether any goods excisable goods or"nOf';* 1 --
(g) Whether a process "isa»_ymanufacturing7 process orrnot, so as-.to Vatt._ract levy of excise duty'; _ _ ' V
(h) Whether a particulair¥ go.od's_*.faI'l; within which headVé--n--g,. stub;-he.ading ¢"r~ra'rrrr item or--tghe.deS;criptio'n o-feggoods asmentioned iin C;'ol_uniin'*eN'o_.3 of the Ceritral Excise Tarifs'-v-'\'ot, 1-9s_5.'»_ _ «««« «»3A7;'"."ri.l5ro'r;is;:5t.he"aiforesaiddiscussion, it is clear that by.' the Appellate Tribunal relatir.g_1tofthe*~..;dete'rmination of any question iihai/ir'igVrel_atiio,n teiithe rate of duty of excise or to V the goods for the purposes of V a's~s_essmeHntN lies to the Supreme Court under 35L(b) of the Act and not to the High Section 35G."
37.. In View of the above said propositiim laid down by this CE/\ No.55/2007 dated 21.04.2011, the leamed "~'coi;inse1 appearing for the appellant submits that he may be 9, L9/i