COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. E. ORIENTAL TIMBERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. John Varghese, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Excise and Customs and Sri. Anil D. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent in Cus. Appeal No. 5 of 2015. These appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Customs invoking Sec. 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it stood prior to its omission by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 (49 of 2005), with effect from 28/12/2005.

(2.) Sub -section (1) of Sec. 130 of the Customs Act reads as follows:

(3.) In the decisions in The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax v/s. M/s. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. (C.E. Appeal No. 28 of 2011 and connections) and in Rajan Beedi Company v/s. Commissioner of Central Excise : 2015 (3) KHC 163 : 2015 (2) KLT 965, this Court had held that 'an appeal under Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act would not lie to the High Court in terms of sub -section (1) of that Sec. in relation to an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment'. It was held that 'any question having a relation to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment goes out of the jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act in view of the exclusionary clause provided in sub -section (1) of that Section'. The provision in Sec. 130(1) of the Customs Act, as it stood before Sec. 130 was omitted is in pari materia with Sec. 35G of the Central Excise Act. So much so, the ratio of decision in Rajan Beedi Company (supra) applies clearly to the case in hand because the question raised in these appeals is as to whether the value of the goods determined by applying a particular value of equivalence between Hoppus Ton and cubic meter is acceptable or not. Hence, the appeals in hand relate to questions entirely referable to the valuation of the goods which is subjected to assessment proceedings. These appeals are, therefore, not maintainable.