COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SHANTI PROCESSORS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr R.J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant in each of the appeals and Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate for the respondent in Tax Appeal No. 332 of 2015 and Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the respondent in Tax Appeals No. 331, 333 and 341 of 2015.

(2.) By these appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the appellant-revenue has challenged the order dated 28th October, 2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [2014 (310) E.L.T. 515 (Tribunal-LB)] by proposing the following questions, stated to be substantial questions of law :

(3.) Mr. Paresh Dave and Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocates for the respondents at the outset submitted that the controversy involved in the present case relates to the determination of a question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment, under the circumstances, in view of the provisions of Section 35G read with Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal would lie before the Supreme Court and not before this court. In support of such submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. JBF Industries Limited - 2011 (264) E.L.T. 162 (Guj), wherein this court has held that the question as regards the applicability of a notification or a circular, which has a direct bearing on the rate of duty is a question which has a direct and proximate relationship to the rate of duty and value of the goods for the purposes of assessment. It was submitted that the above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, under the circumstances, these appeals are not maintainable before this Court.