Customs Act, 1962:
ss. 130 and 130E - Appeal against orders passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) - Whether appeal would lie u/s. 130 before High Court or u/s. 130E before Supreme Court, in the facts of the present case - Held: Appeal to Supreme Court against the order of CESTAT would lie only if any question having relation to the rate of duty is involved in the appeal or if it relates to value of goods for the purpose of assessment or classification of goods or whether the goods were covered by exemption notification - In all other cases appeal would lie before High Court - The question to be determined in the present appeal was neither related to rate of duty nor to valuation of goods nor classification of goods nor coverage under the exemption notification - The appeals also did not involve any question of law of general public importance applicable to a class or category of assesses as a whole - Therefore, in the present case, the appeals were maintainable u/s. 130 before High Court and would not lie u/s. 130E to Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Upon a conjoint reading of ss. 130 and 130E of Customs Act, 1962, it could be seen that an appeal shall lie to the High Court u/s. 130 against every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The only exception carved out is that an appeal shall lie before this Court u/s. 130E and shall not lie before the High Court against the order relating, amongst other things, to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. Thus, only if any question having relation to the rate of duty is involved in an appeal or if it relates to value of goods for the purpose of assessment, the appeal would lie to this Court and in all other cases it would lie before the High Court. [Para 9 and 10] [625-A-C]
2. The Legislature has carved out only following categories of cases to which it has intended to give a special treatment of providing an appeal directly to this court. “(i) determination of a question relating to a rate of duty; (ii) determination of a question relating to the valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment; (iii) determination of a question relating to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification; and (iv) whether the value of goods for purposes of assessment should be enhanced or reduced having regard to certain matters that the said Act provides for.” [Para 16] [629-D-F]
3. In the present case, it could clearly be seen that the only question that is involved is whether the assessee had violated the conditions of the exemption notification by not utilizing the imported materials for manufacturing of the declared final product and was, therefore, liable for payment of duty, interest and penalty. Neither any question with regard to determination of rate of duty arises nor a question relating to valuation of goods for the purposes of assessment arises in the present case. The appeals also do not involve determination of any question relating to the classification of goods, nor do they involve the question as to whether they are covered by the exemption notification or not. Undisputedly, the goods are covered by the said notification. The only question is as to whether the assessee has breached the conditions which are imposed by the notification for getting exemption from payment of the customs duty or not. The appeals do not involve any question of law of general public importance which would be applicable to a class or category of assessees as a whole. The question is purely inter-se between the parties and is required to be adjudicated upon the facts available. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in holding that the appeals are not maintainable under Section 130 of the Customs Act but are tenable before this Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act. [Paras 17 and 18] [629G-H; 630-A-C] Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1993) 4 SCC 320 : [1993]
2 Suppl. SCR 326 ; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Designated Authority, Directorate General of AntiDumping & Allied Duties (2017) 13 SCC 1 : [2017]
6 SCR 598 - relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.