JUDGMENT : RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing numbers: CEA Nos. 5, 7-12, 14-66, 81, 83-87, 93-130, 132-145 of 2018. CEA Nos. 1-6, 8-88, 90-93, 95-115, 117-177 and 179-181 of 2019. All the appeals involve identical issues. 2. The facts are being noticed from CEA No. 05/2018. The revenue is in appeal before this Court against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal No. E/53581/2014, dated 22.03.2018, raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(a) Whether Tribunal was right in passing the judgment impugned relying upon a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of J&K at Jammu in O.W.P. No. 470/2008 along with connected petitions titled Reckit Benckiser vs. Union of India and Others, 2011 (1) JKJ 373 [HC] on 23.12.2010 when the same is challenged before the Divisional Bench of the High Court of J&K at Jammu in L.P.A. (O.W.) No. 20/2011 titled Union of India and Others vs. Reckit Benckiser along with connected appeals and vide interim order dated 13-12-2012, the judgment passed by the writ court is modified and an identical matter is pending disposal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. (b) Whether tribunal was right in holding that respondent is entitled to 100% refund when the matter is pending disposal before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K at Jammu and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.” 3. At the very outset, learned counsels for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals before this Court. While referring to the provisions of Section 35-G and 35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘the Act’) it was submitted that appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal does not lie in case the order of the Tribunal besides other things, involves issue regarding determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty or of the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. The aforesaid provision provided that in such eventuality appeal shall lie against the order passed by the Tribunal directly to Hon'ble the Supreme Court. There is a rationale behind. The aforesaid two important issues have ramification throughout the country and the Act, being a Central Statute, idea is to bring uniformity in its application. The aforesaid provision provided that in such eventuality appeal shall lie against the order passed by the Tribunal directly to Hon'ble the Supreme Court. There is a rationale behind. The aforesaid two important issues have ramification throughout the country and the Act, being a Central Statute, idea is to bring uniformity in its application. It was further submitted that even before the Tribunal, important issues are to be heard and decided by a special Bench consisting of two or more members. 4. Substantiating his argument further, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case in hand the issue regarding grant of exemption is involved. It has been consistently opined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and following the same by different High Courts that, where question is of interpretation of an exemption notification it would fall within the exception part with reference to the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Navin Chemicals MFG and Trading Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, 1993 (68) ELT 3 (SC) and different High Courts in Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula vs. Special Machine, 2009 (242) ELT 330 (P&H), Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Ltd. 2011 (270) ELT 48 (Kar), Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi vs. Bharti Airtel Limited, 2013 (30) STR 451 (Del), Commissioner of Custom and Central Excise vs. Eco Products (I) P. Ltd. 2015 (315) 561 (All), Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Shanti Processors Ltd. 2016 (331) ELT 234 (Guj), Commissioner of Central Excise and ST vs. Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. 2017 (351) ELT 149 (Uttarakhand). In support, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, 2017 (349) ELT 193 (SC). 5. Reference was also made to a Division Bench Judgment, of this Court in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Bharat Box Factory Ltd. 2008 (2) JKJ 459 : 2008 (231) ELT 416 (J&K), wherein issue regarding exemption with reference to Notification No. 56 of 2002, dated November 14, 2002 was involved, which is the subject matter of present appeal as well. In the aforesaid case this Court held the appeal to be not maintainable before the High Court. In the aforesaid case this Court held the appeal to be not maintainable before the High Court. Reference was also made to the order passed by this Court in Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise vs. M/s. Gravita Metals (CEA No. 4 of 2018, decided on 12.10.2018). 6. Coming to the historical background of the litigation, it was submitted that vide Notification No. 56 of 2002, dated 14.11.2002 exemption was granted which was in the form of refund or adjustment of the excise duty paid. The aforesaid notification was issued in exercise of powers conferred on the government under Section 5A of the Act. While the aforesaid exemption notification was still in operation, the benefits available wherein were curtailed vide Notification No. 19/2008-Central Excise, dated 27.03.2008 and No. 34/2008-Central Excise, dated 10.06.2008. The aforesaid notifications were challenged by number of assesses before this Court and the same were set aside by the Learned Single Judge vide judgment in Reckitt Benckiser vs. Union of India, 2011 (1) JKJ 373 : 2011 (269) ELT 194 (J&K). The matter was taken up in appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. Initially interim stay was granted, however, the orders were modified subsequently keeping in view the fact that identical issue is pending consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court wherein direction was for release of 50% of the amount due to the assessee on furnishing solvent surety whereas 50% of the amount was stayed. Finally the appeals were disposed of directing the parties to abide by any order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the pending litigation involving identical issue and till such time the interim arrangement was to continue. The Tribunal had accepted, the appeals relying upon the judgment of this Court. 7. Further the argument raised is that the Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued a Circular dated 17.08.2011 specifying monetary limit for filing appeals before different forums, such as CEASTAT, High Court and Supreme Court. As per the aforesaid circular the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Court was Rs. 10.00 lakhs. With the amendments made in the aforesaid circular from time to time, finally as on date the monetary limit for filing appeal before the High Court stands increased to Rs. 50.00 lakhs vide circular dated 11.07.2018. In the cases in hand the amount involved is less than that. 10.00 lakhs. With the amendments made in the aforesaid circular from time to time, finally as on date the monetary limit for filing appeal before the High Court stands increased to Rs. 50.00 lakhs vide circular dated 11.07.2018. In the cases in hand the amount involved is less than that. It was further submitted that only two exceptions have been provided in the circular dated 17.08.2011 where the monetary limit is not applicable. The same are where constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act or Rules is under challenge and secondly where notification/instructions/order/circular has been held to be ultra-vires. 8. It was further submitted that questions of law, as have been framed by the revenue, cannot in any way be said to be substantial questions of law. Hence, the appeal cannot be entertained or these need to be reframed. He further submitted that revenue had challenged the order passed by this Court in Bharat Box Factory's case before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 9. In response to the preliminary objections raised by learned counsel for the assesses, the learned counsel for the revenue submitted that none of the judgments sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the assesses are applicable in the facts of the case in hand. Order passed by the Tribunal is quite sketchy. It has just set aside the well reasoned order passed by the First Appellate Authority. There is huge amount of revenue involved. The Tribunal had merely accepted the appeal of the assessee referring to the Single Bench Judgment of this Court in Reckitt Benckiser's case (supra) whereas the appeal against the same was pending (which now stands disposed of). In view of the aforesaid facts the Tribunal should have kept the matter pending. He further submitted that the revenue has not raised any question with reference to exemption in the appeals in hand. It is only regarding the propriety of the proceedings before the Tribunal. 10. He further submitted that the department will be at disadvantageous position in the case of the assesses who had not challenged the notification curtailing the exemption as in those cases there is no interim stay, whereas in the cases where writ petitions were filed by the assesses the department is only to pay 50% amount to them at this stage. He further submitted that the department will be at disadvantageous position in the case of the assesses who had not challenged the notification curtailing the exemption as in those cases there is no interim stay, whereas in the cases where writ petitions were filed by the assesses the department is only to pay 50% amount to them at this stage. He further submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was applicable only to the petitioners before this court and not to those assesses who had not approached the court. He further submitted that the revenue had challenged the order passed by this Court in Bharat Box Factory's case (supra) before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 11. In response, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal filed by the revenue (against the judgment of this Court in Bharat Box case(supra) was disposed of alongwith a bunch of appeals as the legal issue was decided in case of M/s. SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Guwahati, 2017 (355) ELT 481 (SC). He further submitted that the question of law as have been framed by the revenue is to camouflage this court if seen on the face of it. Rather what is required to be considered is the substance of the matter. It is the duty of the Court to frame/reframe the substantial questions of law, if any, at the time of admission of the appeal, which arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal. In the case in hand, the primary issue is regarding right of the assessee to claim exemption. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objections raised by the assessees regarding maintainability of appeals before this Court. 13. The questions of law as are sought to be framed by the revenue in the present appeal in fact need to be re-framed going to the core issue. In substance, the issue is as to whether the assessee is entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE, dated 14.11.2002 with reference to subsequent Notification Nos. 19/2008-CE, dated 27.03.2008 and 34/2008-CE, dated 10.06.2008. 14. The relevant provision of Section 35-G and 35-L are reproduced herein-below: “Section 35G. In substance, the issue is as to whether the assessee is entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE, dated 14.11.2002 with reference to subsequent Notification Nos. 19/2008-CE, dated 27.03.2008 and 34/2008-CE, dated 10.06.2008. 14. The relevant provision of Section 35-G and 35-L are reproduced herein-below: “Section 35G. 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 excise 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.” “Section 35L. Appeal to the Supreme Court - (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from: (a) Any judgment of the High Court delivered: (i) In an appeal made under section 35G. (ii) On a reference made under section 35G by the appellate Tribunal before the 1st day of July, 2003. (iii) On a reference made under section 35H. In any case which, on its own motion or on an oral application made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after passing of the judgment, the High Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. (b) Any order passed [before the establishment of the National Tax Tribunal] by the Appellate Tribunal 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 purposes of assessment. For the purpose of this Chapter, the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty shall include the determination of taxability or excisability of goods for the purpose of assessment.” 15. A perusal of Section 35-G of the Act shows that an appeal lies to this Court from every order passed in appeal by the Tribunal except in a case where the order relates, among other things, to determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purpose of assessment. A perusal of Section 35-G of the Act shows that an appeal lies to this Court from every order passed in appeal by the Tribunal except in a case where the order relates, among other things, to determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purpose of assessment. While excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the aforesaid issues, appeal has been provided directly from the order of the Tribunal, on the aforesaid issues, to Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as provided for in Section 35-L of the Act. As to the interpretation of the aforesaid exception carved out in Section 35-G of the Act is concerned, issue was initially considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Navin Chemical's case (supra). It was a case under the Customs Act but with similar provisions. The issue was regarding the Bench of the Tribunal which could hear the appeal. It was opined therein where the issue involved is regarding exemption notification, it has proximity to the rate of duty applicable for the purpose of assessment. Applying the aforesaid judgment Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in AST Paper Mill's case (supra) opined that where the question is as to whether the assessment is covered by an exemption notification or not relates to rate of duty, hence, appeal was held to be not maintainable. Similar was the view; expressed in a subsequent judgment in Special Machine's case (supra). The opinion expressed by Gujarat High Court in Shanti Processors Ltd. case (supra), is also in the same line. 16. Delhi High Court in Bharti Airtel Limited case (supra) had opined that for the purposes of consideration of the issue regarding maintainability of appeal before the High Court, nature of the order has to be considered and not the issue sought to be raised by the appellant. In fact this is evident from the plain language of Section 35-G of the Act, which provide that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed by the Tribunal not being an order relating to determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purpose of assessment. 17. 17. Similar was the view expressed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Eco Products (I) P. Ltd. case (supra). Relevant Para 58 thereof is extracted below: “58. There is no dispute that right of appeal is a statutory right given under Sections 35-G and 35-L of the Act. The scheme of the Act as delineated by Sections 35-G and 35-L indicates that subject matter of appeal before the High Court and the Apex Court have been clearly demarcated. The right of appeal has been granted to the assessee or revenue before the High Court and the Apex Court on different grounds. There is no question of giving any restrictive interpretation to the exclusionary clause under Section 35-G since the category which was excluded from the appeal before the High Court under Section 35-G of the Act is expressly included under Section 35-L of the Act. The demarcation of the subject matter of appeal before this Court and the Apex Court was with some object and purpose and when the words in sections are plain and unambiguous, the plain and literal interpretation has to be adopted. It is useful to refer to paragraph 44 of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore vs. Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Ltd. 2011 (270) E.L.T. 49 (Kar.) where the Karnataka High Court has noticed the intention behind the bifurcation of jurisdiction between the Apex Court and the High Court. Following was laid down by the Karnataka High Court in paragraph 44, which is as under:- “44. The intention behind this bifurcation between the Apex Court and the High Court seems to be that more often than not, any decision on these aforesaid aspects not only affects the interest of the manufacturers who are parties thereto, but also to the manufacturers of those products throughout the country. In a country governed by Parliamentary legislation because of the territorial bifurcation in forming states and because of the divergent opinion which is possible, the excise duty payable would vary from place to place. In order to bring uniformity in the levy of excise duty throughout the country and consequently to see that the country's finance is not affected, the Parliament has vested the jurisdiction to decide the disputes with the Apex Court. In order to bring uniformity in the levy of excise duty throughout the country and consequently to see that the country's finance is not affected, the Parliament has vested the jurisdiction to decide the disputes with the Apex Court. Therefore, we see a duty policy underlining this bifurcation of the jurisdiction between the Apex Court and the High Courts. All other matters other than what is set out above, which relates to the individual manufacturers and all disputes based on assessment orders which have attained finality, such as the benefits to which they are entitled to, refunds, duty drawbacks, rebates, etc. which relate to a particular manufacturer falls within the jurisdiction of the High Courts.” 18. It was opined therein that question of exemption is directly and proximately related to the rate of duty for the purpose of assessment of excise duty payable by assessee. Hence, jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the appeal will be excluded. 19. Similar view was expressed by a Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. case (supra). 20. From the above referred judgments, it is evident that the consistent opinion of the courts is that the dispute, as to whether or not the assessee is covered by the exemption notification, relates directly or proximately to the rate of duty applicable thereto for the purpose of assessment, hence, High Courts will not have jurisdiction to entertain appeal pertaining to that, it being in exclusive jurisdiction of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 21. Explaining the issue as to how the case involved valuation for the purpose of calculation of duty, it was submitted that initially the exemption was in total, however, later on, the same was reduced only to the extent of the value addition. Hence, it is the value of the goods for the purpose of taxation which will be involved in the present appeal. 22. As far as the judgment of this Court in Bharat Box Factory's case (supra) is concerned, the issue in the aforesaid case pertained to the same exemption notification i.e. Notification No. 56 of 2002. It was concerning the education cess levied and collected for purpose of grant of refund or by way of self-credit under the aforesaid notification. The Division Bench of this Court opined that the issue involved related to rate of duty of excise for the purpose of assessment. It was concerning the education cess levied and collected for purpose of grant of refund or by way of self-credit under the aforesaid notification. The Division Bench of this Court opined that the issue involved related to rate of duty of excise for the purpose of assessment. Hence, appeal before this Court was not maintainable. Appeal filed by the revenue before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgment was decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court with SRD Nutrients' case (supra). 23. We do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the revenue that judgment of this Court deciding the validity of a notification will be a judgment in personam and not in rem and will apply only to the petitioners before the Court. As the opinion expressed by this Court was declaration of law, it will apply uniformly to all the assesses concerned without any exception, irrespective of the fact whether any party had approached the Court or not. 24. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee that the present appeal before this Court will not be maintainable because of the amount of duty involved, keeping in view circular issued by the Board. We are of the opinion that the argument is totally misconceived for the reason that there are bunch of appeals filed before this Court on the same legal issue and the amount involved therein is substantial, hence, piecemeal appeals cannot be dismissed only on account of maintainability on the ground of the amount involved. 25. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the issue involved is regarding interpretation of exemption notifications dated 14.11.2002, 27.03.2008 and 10.06.2008, which will have effect or valuation of goods for the purpose of levy of duty, hence appeals before this Court will not be maintainable. 26. For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, appeal before this Court against the order passed by the Tribunal will not be maintainable as the jurisdiction to entertain the same would lie before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Registry is directed to return the original paper books to the counsel for the appellants, after retaining a photo-copy thereof for record, to enable the appellants to present the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction.