COMMISSIONER Vs. KICH INDUSTRIES AND ORS

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 noted the proposed substantial questions of law and the issue involved, we called upon the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant to satisfy how the present Tax Appeals before this Court would be maintainable. To the aforesaid, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is not in a position to dispute that the identical questions came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 973/2011, more particularly, with respect to maintainability of the appeal before this Court involving the similar issues raised in the present Tax Appeals and the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, as for the issues involved in the Tax Appeals, appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act would be maintainable.

(3.) 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.