Page 181 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-V v. RELIANCE MEDIA WORKS LTD. 227

ing to the rate of duty of excise or value of goods for the purpose of
assessment. The above orders were excluded from the jurisdiction
of the High Court and were appealable only to the Hon’ble Su-
preme Court in terms of Section 35L(1)(b) of the Act. In the context
of the above, we have to consider that when the order of the Tribu-
nal decides a dispute that the service is not covered by the Finance
Act or goods not being covered by the Act for the purposes of de-
termining the rate of duty for the purpose of assessment, would be
appealable to this Court or not.
(b) The contention of the appellant - Revenue is that deciding of excisa-
bility or taxability is not connected to the rate of duty. Therefore, an
order of the Tribunal deciding excisability/taxability are appealable
to the High Court and not the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support
reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
Motorola India Ltd. (supra), while dealing with pari materia provi-
sions under the Customs Act, 1962. We note that the issue in the
above case was not with regard to excisability or taxability or im-
portability in the context of Customs Act, 1962 but with regard to el-
igibility of an exemption notification for non-satisfaction of post-
import conditions therein. In the above case, there was no issue re-
lating to the rate of duty in respect of the goods imported but the is-
sue was application of an exemption after importation and clear-
ance for home consumption, subject to satisfying the conditions of
the notification, viz. utilization of imported material for specific
purpose such as manufacture of final product. The Supreme Court,
while holding that the above issue is not a rate of duty issue, ob-
served that the dispute is inter se between the parties and the deci-
sion is not applicable to a separate class or category of assessees as a
whole. The above decision will not apply to a decision of the Tribu-
nal dealing with taxability/excisability which necessarily would re-
quire determining the rate of duty for the purpose of assessment. It
is only on deciding the taxability of services or excisability of goods
that a rate of duty can be decided. The words “determination of any
question having a relation to rate of duty of excise for the purpose of
assessment” as found in the context of Sections 35G and 35L of the
Act was a subject of consideration by this Court in Sterlite Optical
Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007 (213) E.L.T.
658. This Court held that the word “assessment” has a very com-
prehensive meaning, i.e. it can comprehend the whole procedure for
ascertaining and imposing duty liability. Thus, the words “for the
purpose of assessment” would cover even the issue of the Tribunal
deciding excisability and/or taxability as it is a part of the process
of assessment. Besides, the answer to the question whether a prod-
uct/service is excisable/taxable will not only have an impact on a
dispute between parties inter se but would have an all India impact
and, therefore, the statute contemplates an appeal to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court for uniformity of decisions. Otherwise, we would
have a situation where different High Courts take different views
on the issue of excisability/taxability, leading to a situation where
in some States the service/goods are not taxable/excisable and tax-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  197