COMMISSIONER Vs. KICH INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these Tax Appeals have been preferred by the common appellant -Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs challenging the impugned common judgment and order dated 22/11/2012 passed by the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') in Appeal No. E/267 to 272/2012 with the following proposed substantial questions of law;

(2.) HAVING heard Shri R.J. Oza, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the proposed substantial questions of law referred to hereinabove and the controversy and the issues involved in the present Tax Appeals, we are of the view that the present Tax Appeals before this Court filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act would not be maintainable and the questions involved can only be decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

(3.) IDENTICAL question also came to be considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula Vs. Special Machine reported in, 2009 (242) EIT 330 where the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the dispute as to whether the assessee was covered by the exemption notification, was related directly and proximately to rate of duty applicable and, therefore, the appeal on question of law before the High Court would not be maintainable and an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be maintainable before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. As a sequel to the above discussion, we are of the view that the present Tax Appeals are not maintainable and the only remedy available to the revenue is to file appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, Registry is directed to return all the Tax Appeals to the appellant to present it before the competent Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly, all the Tax Appeals stand disposed of so far as this Court is concerned.