COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. VIMLA ROLING MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals by the Revenue, substantial question of law were framed on 24th February, 2014 and 25th February, 2014. However, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the order-in-original, several issues were decided including the question whether the activity undertaken by the respondent-assessee amounts to manufacture. The said question or dispute pertains to levy of duty, which is a question relating to rate of duty as held in CEAC No. 12/2013, Commissioner of Service Tax v. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd. and other, 2014 34 STR 3. In this decision, it has been observed that the issues and contentions decided in the order-in-original would determine whether an appeal would lie before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the aforesaid Act. The issue decided by the Tribunal and raised before the appellate court would not be relevant on the question of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the High Court under Section 35L or 35G of the aforesaid Act. This was apparent from the language and words of the two provisions and a contrary interpretation would lead to unacceptable results with one party filing appeal under Section 35G and the other party under Section 35L of the said Act. Further, the respondent may be denied right to file cross objections. It is noticeable that in the first round also, against the order of the Tribunal, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court by the assessee. In these circumstances, the appeals are returned as they are not maintainable before the High Court. It is open to the appellant-Revenue to file an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if so advised, and in accordance with the law.