Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1599 (KER)

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. E. ORIENTAL TIMBERS

2015-11-21

ANU SIVARAMAN, T.B.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : T.B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 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 Section 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 Section 130 of the Customs Act reads as follows: "130. Appeal to High Court.--(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law." The said provision is in pari materia with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. In the decisions in The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax v. M/s. Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. (C.E. Appeal No. 28 of 2011 and connections) and in Rajan Beedi Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise , 2015 (3) KHC 163 : 2015 (2) KLT 965 , this Court had held that 'an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act would not lie to the High Court in terms of sub-section (1) of that Section 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 Section 35G of the Central Excise Act in view of the exclusionary clause provided in sub-section (1) of that Section'. The provision in Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, as it stood before Section 130 was omitted is in pari materia with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The provision in Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, as it stood before Section 130 was omitted is in pari materia with Section 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. In the result, these appeals are dismissed without prejudice to appeals in appropriate jurisdiction, in accordance with law.